NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: IfICouldFall on September 06, 2007, 11:28:14 am
-
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/09/high-school-stu.html
I just had to make this topic! I can't believe that a highschool student could stand up to a presidential candidate about LGBT rights. Plus, Will's in my English class... so that makes it more awesome! :D
EDIT: Sorry for the mispelled title "get's" is supposed to be "gets" lol Haha
-
Wow thanks for posting that.
Stupid homophobics. What the heck is people's problem?
Just because someone is different doesn't mean that they are doing something wrong. How could anyone even have such a lame opinion (McCain)?
Does he think gays are inhuman or something just because they aren't like him?
They are just people who just happen to like the same gender. Why can't people just accept that and move on?!
----
“So you believe in taking away someone’s rights because you believe it’s wrong?”
Exactly. If everyone was the same in this world and all believed in the same things, can you imagine how boring it would be?Just because HE believes something is wrong doesn't mean it IS wrong.
-
Well, technically, if you're christian or believe in the christian God, the Bible clearly says homosexuality it wrong. Some some uber religious people won't be able to just accept that and move on, niether will homophobes. But you're right, people should accept it as it is and not be such tightasses and speech and be vocal about it. I'm not all for the gay thing, but at least I have manners.
-
The bible says that? What the heck it its problem?
Sorry Im not into that whole religious thing.
I have a gay relative and I love him all the same. Just because the bible says its wrong what he believes in doesnt mean he shouldn't be accepted.
Someone needs to rewrite that thing [the bible.]
And atleast you're polite about it (person who posted above me.)
I had a teacher who just came out and said his homophobic opionions right in front of everyone. His rude, wrong, opinions...
-
Well it is a shame that homophobic's exsist, but you have to remember 1 person can't make a difference, especially posting on a forum. So you wanna change something, get all your friends, and protest against it, it is wrong.
-
Who is this McCain person? Did he invent Chicken McNuggets? Hm?
-
LOL no.
He's some senator or something.
-
Ugh, I hate politics. :cry:
Such a waste of time.
-
Not really a waste of time. We have to have them to make this country run smoothly (or un-smoothly. Thanks a lot GWB)
But anyways...
:D
-
mmhmm... well I see it as who cares about who goes out with who if its the oppisite sex or same sex why should there be people to judge I mean we are in the land of the "free" why can't the person you want to marry/date have to be an issue were you can't really be free for some people??!? its one of those things that will mabey never get reslocved there is always going to be one person against it never 100% ok with it. Like with racists (spelled wrong) that is always going to be there. Worlds not perfect, oh well.
Like V said in a performance (The Roxy? Bowlery? one of thoes) She said that you should "be able to go out with whatever you want does not even have to be a person I dont get it"..
paraphrased a bit but you get the point.
-
Not really a waste of time. We have to have them to make this country run smoothly (or un-smoothly. Thanks a lot GWB)
But anyways...
:D
Omg please take George back, ever since he came to australia, jesus... It's been so packed and so much secruity around the air port...
But he did get us a public holiday [eg today]..
-
mmhmm... well I see it as who cares about who goes out with who if its the oppisite sex or same sex why should there be people to judge I mean we are in the land of the "free" why can't the person you want to marry/date have to be an issue were you can't really be free for some people??!? its one of those things that will mabey never get reslocved there is always going to be one person against it never 100% ok with it. Like with racists (spelled wrong) that is always going to be there. Worlds not perfect, oh well.
Like V said in a performance (The Roxy? Bowlery? one of thoes) She said that you should "be able to go out with whatever you want does not even have to be a person I dont get it"..
paraphrased a bit but you get the point.
You make no sense.
I didn't read the article, but anyway I'm gay and I happen to think that it's not right for two guys or two girls to get married.
-
mmhmm... well I see it as who cares about who goes out with who if its the oppisite sex or same sex why should there be people to judge I mean we are in the land of the "free" why can't the person you want to marry/date have to be an issue were you can't really be free for some people??!? its one of those things that will mabey never get reslocved there is always going to be one person against it never 100% ok with it. Like with racists (spelled wrong) that is always going to be there. Worlds not perfect, oh well.
Like V said in a performance (The Roxy? Bowlery? one of thoes) She said that you should "be able to go out with whatever you want does not even have to be a person I dont get it"..
paraphrased a bit but you get the point.
You make no sense.
I didn't read the article, but anyway I'm gay and I happen to think that it's not right for two guys or two girls to get married.
So when you find a guy you like, you will never want to spend your life with him, as a married couple. Just a question by the way.
-
I make no sense? You make no sense! you just go around posting lame comments on posts that people post. I was just giving my oppinoin and you have to go and make it look like its crappy, thanks thanks a lot. That was retorical so don't say You welcome.
-
Take George back?
You guys can keep him :D
And isthefiveofus, I thought that was a very good opinion.
-
mmhmm... well I see it as who cares about who goes out with who if its the oppisite sex or same sex why should there be people to judge I mean we are in the land of the "free" why can't the person you want to marry/date have to be an issue were you can't really be free for some people??!? its one of those things that will mabey never get reslocved there is always going to be one person against it never 100% ok with it. Like with racists (spelled wrong) that is always going to be there. Worlds not perfect, oh well.
Like V said in a performance (The Roxy? Bowlery? one of thoes) She said that you should "be able to go out with whatever you want does not even have to be a person I dont get it"..
paraphrased a bit but you get the point.
You make no sense.
I didn't read the article, but anyway I'm gay and I happen to think that it's not right for two guys or two girls to get married.
So when you find a guy you like, you will never want to spend your life with him, as a married couple. Just a question by the way.
Nope. I'll live with him, and everything else...but I wouldn't find it right to be married to him.
Oh, and itsthefiveofus, you're welcome.
-
Take George back?
You guys can keep him :D
And isthefiveofus, I thought that was a very good opinion.
Thanks.
I just think you know just respect others opinoins you dont see me going and saying oh well your opinoin stinks mines better or what not (directed towards soupjour not twilightcarnival.... whatever I done with soup whatever...
anywho
-
Well, technically, if you're christian or believe in the christian God, the Bible clearly says homosexuality it wrong. Some some uber religious people won't be able to just accept that and move on, niether will homophobes. But you're right, people should accept it as it is and not be such tightasses and speech and be vocal about it. I'm not all for the gay thing, but at least I have manners.
I'm a Christian, but I still support gay marriages (one of my friends is gay). Plus the bible was also invented how many years ago? we're in a new era now.
Also, God doesn't judge people so if he doesn't judge gay people then they should be able to get married in my opinion.
-
Well, technically, if you're christian or believe in the christian God, the Bible clearly says homosexuality it wrong. Some some uber religious people won't be able to just accept that and move on, niether will homophobes. But you're right, people should accept it as it is and not be such tightasses and speech and be vocal about it. I'm not all for the gay thing, but at least I have manners.
I'm a Christian, but I still support gay marriages (one of my friends is gay). Plus the bible was also invented how many years ago? we're in a new era now.
Also, God doesn't judge people so if he doesn't judge gay people then they should be able to get married in my opinion.
we're in a new era? so you think God's just gonna compromise? No, I don't think so. The Bible is still effective today, than it ever was. People were gay back then, and they are now. Unlike the millions of help books that are written and go out of style, I think the God that created you knows everything about you and what's best for you.
And God does judge people. He's just and fair about it, but he doesn't let any wrongdoing go by his sight.
And I'm not bashing anyone, I just want to say that.
-
Well, technically, if you're christian or believe in the christian God, the Bible clearly says homosexuality it wrong. Some some uber religious people won't be able to just accept that and move on, niether will homophobes. But you're right, people should accept it as it is and not be such tightasses and speech and be vocal about it. I'm not all for the gay thing, but at least I have manners.
The Bible is not as clear on homosexuality as you think it is. And all of the main discussion points are either old testament or the words of paul. Neither of which is infalible in the same way the words of Jesus are treated by Christians.
Interpreations of the Bible that are not anti-homosexual are pretty easy to find.
-
Romans 1: 24-27:
"24 Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25 even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."
That was Paul writing, but those were God's thoughts. I don't see how that could be any clearer.
-
For the record, just because a person may be against marriage for gays does not mean they are discriminating against gays or are homophobic.
I agree with civil unions, and I agree that gays should have all the benefits of a "marriage", but I also understand the point of view of those who want to protect the "sanctity" of a marriage and to keep marriage something only allowed between a male and a female- as males and females are the only combination of sexes that can procreate.
It's narrow-minded, in my opinion, to not understand and see both sides of the equation. A same sex marriage is NOT the same as a heterosexual marriage.
Though I think it's wrong to deny them the financial and emotional benefits of being married, I have never really been a strong advocate of using the term "married" for them.
I've always said I'm for marriage and garriage... haha
-
Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. End of story.
-
For the record, just because a person may be against marriage for gays does not mean they are discriminating against gays or are homophobic.
THANK YOU. I'm against gay marriage, so shoot me and call me a homophobic already because thats what happens all the time.
-
Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. End of story.
Who says?
It's not meant to be anything, rather than something between two people that love eachother.
-
:? I just feel that marriage is only between a man and a woman. But thats just homophobic anti-gay me!
-
:? I just feel that marriage is only between a man and a woman. But thats just homophobic anti-gay me!
I know you have your own say, but please dont take this as a personal attack.
Many people have different choices, if gay marriage is allowed, or not allowed, but if anything the government bans it in half the world [i'd assume]. So it doesn't matter anyway.
-
That's okay Manda.
You are entitled to your own opinions.
-
Haha, I remember this argument going on back in the old days here too.
I don't really have an opinion on gay marriage. I don't see myself marrying anyone, man or woman (unless Si accepts my long standing marriage proposal one day :wink: ) anytime soon.
If it's legalised, it probably ought to be just called a civil union, because the shitstorm that ensues if it's called a marriage will be epic. It's just a word, and if you get the same rights and everything, isn't that enough?
-
Marriage is meant to be between a man and a woman. End of story.
Who says?
It's not meant to be anything, rather than something between two people that love eachother.
The Bible says.
Well, I think if you're like Jewish or you're like an atheist or something then it's alright for two guys or two girls to get married. But for those who follow the Book of God at least to some extent, then I think it's absolutely out of the question. But even if the Bible wasn't against it, I just think it's not right.
Also, whatever happened to "hit it & quit it?" Why are all these gay people getting all lovey dovey all of a sudden, it's annoying.
-
Also, whatever happened to "hit it & quit it?" Why are all these gay people getting all lovey dovey all of a sudden, it's annoying.
That's normally just the guys. Lesbians are all about renting the U-Hauls after the second date. :lol:
And I'm joking, mods, whoever you are nowadays.
-
Haha wow, I can't believe anyone on this board actually shares my opinion. I'm not even religious, so that's not my firewall. I'm agnostic at best, and I still think that for the purpose of clarity (mostly) and tradition (somewhat), "marriage" the word and the exact legal union stipulated within the definition, should remain male and female only. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with - why the heck can't they just have their own word for it and call it a day?
Garriage people, GARRIAGE. Learn it and love it =)
-
Well, technically, if you're christian or believe in the christian God, the Bible clearly says homosexuality it wrong. Some some uber religious people won't be able to just accept that and move on, niether will homophobes. But you're right, people should accept it as it is and not be such tightasses and speech and be vocal about it. I'm not all for the gay thing, but at least I have manners.
The Bible is not as clear on homosexuality as you think it is. And all of the main discussion points are either old testament or the words of paul. Neither of which is infalible in the same way the words of Jesus are treated by Christians.
Interpreations of the Bible that are not anti-homosexual are pretty easy to find.
The bible says that marriage is between a man and a woman because thousands of years ago some people were fuck stupid and out of control and would fall in love with camels, and their village elder's had to be like, "NO! You can't marry that camel! I don't care how much you love her, you're supposed to marry a woman goddamit!"
And now people interpret that as saying gay people shouldn't get married. lol
Edit - I don't really understand the whole notion of needing to keep the "sanctity" of marriage. Divorce rates are higher in red states than they are in blue states, Massachusetts, the only state with legalized gay marriage has one of the lowest divorce rates out of any states in the entire country.
Marriage isn't much of a sanctuary if you divorce from it, I mean if you ask John McCain about his stance on gay marriage, he's all about "keeping the sanctity of marriage" but he's a divorcee who left his wife because he had an affair with another woman, what a hypocrite.
If people really want to preserve the sanctity of marriage, instead of creating a bill that bans gays from getting married, they should create a bill that prevents people from getting divorced or eloped. Divorce is a much bigger problem in this country than gay marriage, and it's an even bigger problem in the states that are controlled by Evangelicals. :roll:
-
Haha wow, I can't believe anyone on this board actually shares my opinion. I'm not even religious, so that's not my firewall. I'm agnostic at best, and I still think that for the purpose of clarity (mostly) and tradition (somewhat), "marriage" the word and the exact legal union stipulated within the definition, should remain male and female only. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with - why the heck can't they just have their own word for it and call it a day?
Garriage people, GARRIAGE. Learn it and love it =)
Gay people, such as myself, don't want another word for "marriage" because it's about equality. You know, in the constitution it states that all men are created equal and such, remember? So since we're all equal according to the constitution, why do we need another goddamn word for the same exact thing. :roll:
-
Well said, portions.for.foxes.
-
Romans 1: 24-27:
"24 Therefore God, in keeping with the desires of their hearts, gave them up to uncleanness, that their bodies might be dishonored among them, 25 even those who exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the One who created, who is blessed forever. Amen. 26 That is why God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; 27 and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene and receiving in themselves the full recompense, which was due for their error."
That was Paul writing, but those were God's thoughts. I don't see how that could be any clearer.
Uh... let's look at what it's saying....
The men left their "natural use" for females and became "inflamed in their lust" toward one another.
So, what are the two sins being dismissed here?
Lust and going against the natural way.
If you're born gay, you're not going against the natural anything. You're doing exactly as God created you to do.
And Lust has ALWAYS been a sin, and has nothing to do with sexual preference.
So, yeah... you're right... it couldn't be any clearer.
-
Haha wow, I can't believe anyone on this board actually shares my opinion. I'm not even religious, so that's not my firewall. I'm agnostic at best, and I still think that for the purpose of clarity (mostly) and tradition (somewhat), "marriage" the word and the exact legal union stipulated within the definition, should remain male and female only. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with - why the heck can't they just have their own word for it and call it a day?
Garriage people, GARRIAGE. Learn it and love it =)
Gay people, such as myself, don't want another word for "marriage" because it's about equality. You know, in the constitution it states that all men are created equal and such, remember? So since we're all equal according to the constitution, why do we need another goddamn word for the same exact thing. :roll:
I don't know, why do we need another word for murder when it's performed on a Gay person than when it's performed on a straight person?
Or maybe you want to get rid of "hate crime" too?
Why do we need a different set of laws for hiring and firing gay people than for hiring and firing straight people? Or maybe you want to get rid of discrimination laws that specifically list sexual preference too?
Why do we need a different word for men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women? We should just call them all "sexual" right?
You use different words to distinguish things that are different.
I don't think we should have a new legal definition, but I am OK with society giving it a new name to differentiate.
-
Haha wow, I can't believe anyone on this board actually shares my opinion. I'm not even religious, so that's not my firewall. I'm agnostic at best, and I still think that for the purpose of clarity (mostly) and tradition (somewhat), "marriage" the word and the exact legal union stipulated within the definition, should remain male and female only. It has nothing to do with discrimination, and everything to do with - why the heck can't they just have their own word for it and call it a day?
Garriage people, GARRIAGE. Learn it and love it =)
Gay people, such as myself, don't want another word for "marriage" because it's about equality. You know, in the constitution it states that all men are created equal and such, remember? So since we're all equal according to the constitution, why do we need another goddamn word for the same exact thing. :roll:
I don't know, why do we need another word for murder when it's performed on a Gay person than when it's performed on a straight person?
Or maybe you want to get rid of "hate crime" too?
Why do we need a different set of laws for hiring and firing gay people than for hiring and firing straight people? Or maybe you want to get rid of discrimination laws that specifically list sexual preference too?
Why do we need a different word for men who have sex with men and men who have sex with women? We should just call them all "sexual" right?
You use different words to distinguish things that are different.
I don't think we should have a new legal definition, but I am OK with society giving it a new name to differentiate.
Murder is still murder, motivations for murder however, are different. If a gay individual is murdered during a robbery for the purpose of aquiring their money, it's not a hate a crime. It only becomes a hate crime when that gay individual is murdered because they're gay. Those are two very different scenarios. If someone is killed for their sexuality, gender, race, etc. - that's a hate crime. Which is different from other acts of murder.
You don't always need another word for when a gay person is murdered. You only need another word (hate crime) when a gay person is murdered because of a hate crime. Not all gay people killed are murdered because of hate crimes, and not all of their murder's are labeled as such. Your statement makes no sense at all.
Saying that marriage, between two people whom love one another, should be given a different name when it's not different from any other type of union between a man and woman, is a pretty moronic statement. If you're straight or gay, it fucking doesn't matter, marriage is still marriage. The act of marriage, the recognition of marriage, the financial benefits that married couples receieve from the government, are all the same. The only thing that is different, are the people being married, but marriage itself still hasn't changed.
So there's no need to differentiate marriage between two men and marriage between a man and a woman. So there's no need for another word, because marriage itself hasn't changed.
Men that have sex with other men are given a different name because the act of sex they perform is different from the act of sex a man and woman would perform. Gay sex, and straight sex, are different. So yes, we need different labels because guess what, they're actually different things. Again, your statement makes no sense.
Marriage itself and what it intales isn't different. That's my point.
The amount of flawed logic in your post baffles me.
-
mmhmm... well I see it as who cares about who goes out with who if its the oppisite sex or same sex why should there be people to judge I mean we are in the land of the "free" why can't the person you want to marry/date have to be an issue were you can't really be free for some people??!? its one of those things that will mabey never get reslocved there is always going to be one person against it never 100% ok with it. Like with racists (spelled wrong) that is always going to be there. Worlds not perfect, oh well.
Like V said in a performance (The Roxy? Bowlery? one of thoes) She said that you should "be able to go out with whatever you want does not even have to be a person I dont get it"..
paraphrased a bit but you get the point.
You make no sense.
I didn't read the article, but anyway I'm gay and I happen to think that it's not right for two guys or two girls to get married.
I'm glad you're gay. Because anyone that's okay with remaining a second class citizen for the rest of their lives isn't someone who should breed.
You're the biggest moron I've ever come across. I feel really sorry for you.
-
mmhmm... well I see it as who cares about who goes out with who if its the oppisite sex or same sex why should there be people to judge I mean we are in the land of the "free" why can't the person you want to marry/date have to be an issue were you can't really be free for some people??!? its one of those things that will mabey never get reslocved there is always going to be one person against it never 100% ok with it. Like with racists (spelled wrong) that is always going to be there. Worlds not perfect, oh well.
Like V said in a performance (The Roxy? Bowlery? one of thoes) She said that you should "be able to go out with whatever you want does not even have to be a person I dont get it"..
paraphrased a bit but you get the point.
You make no sense.
I didn't read the article, but anyway I'm gay and I happen to think that it's not right for two guys or two girls to get married.
I'm glad you're gay. Because anyone that's okay with remaining a second class citizen for the rest of their lives isn't someone who should breed.
You're the biggest moron I've ever come across. I feel really sorry for you.
Listen bitch, you need to stfu because you don't even know me.
The word MARRIAGE, for like a bajillion years, has been used to describe the communion of a male and a female. WHY, all of a sudden, should it also be used to describe the communion between two males?
Whatever. You disgust me. It's people like YOU that I wish nothing but slow, painful death upon. That is all.
-
mmhmm... well I see it as who cares about who goes out with who if its the oppisite sex or same sex why should there be people to judge I mean we are in the land of the "free" why can't the person you want to marry/date have to be an issue were you can't really be free for some people??!? its one of those things that will mabey never get reslocved there is always going to be one person against it never 100% ok with it. Like with racists (spelled wrong) that is always going to be there. Worlds not perfect, oh well.
Like V said in a performance (The Roxy? Bowlery? one of thoes) She said that you should "be able to go out with whatever you want does not even have to be a person I dont get it"..
paraphrased a bit but you get the point.
You make no sense.
I didn't read the article, but anyway I'm gay and I happen to think that it's not right for two guys or two girls to get married.
I'm glad you're gay. Because anyone that's okay with remaining a second class citizen for the rest of their lives isn't someone who should breed.
You're the biggest moron I've ever come across. I feel really sorry for you.
Listen bitch, you need to stfu because you don't even know me.
The word MARRIAGE, for like a bajillion years, has been used to describe the communion of a male and a female. WHY, all of a sudden, should it also be used to describe the communion between two males?
Whatever. You disgust me. It's people like YOU that I wish nothing but slow, painful death upon. That is all.
Why? Because it's the 21st century idiot. It's not a "bajillion" years ago. Even the Roman Catholic Church has adapted itself to contemporary times regarding some issues.
Times change. And it's people like you who I would wish would just shut their mouths because they never have anything intelligent to say. And wishing death upon people is really mature.
Just because something has been a certain way for awhile doesn't make it anymore right or okay. I mean, with your logic I guess slavery would still be okay, because that was the norm a long time ago, and no one questioned it or opposed it for awhile. Just because it's around, doesn't mean it's right.
Any form of oppression and prejudice, is wrong. End of story.
What a moron. Get over yourself.
-
If you're born gay, you're not going against the natural anything. You're doing exactly as God created you to do.
Not true. Since imperfection you are born that way. God did not create humans imperfect. They became imperfect after adam and eve screwed up. They were perfect before. Thus, all of us are unnatural. Don't ask me how these defects came about, but God didn't make them.
And grakthis, what's your opinion on this scripture:
1 Corinthians 6:9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves,...
-
I think most of you make really good points in this thread but I just have to say that marriage has always been between a man and a woman, no matter if you are born gay (which I do not believe) and the church does not agree with it. If the church did agree with it it would be in effect today. However its not.
This will probably never change because the church holds on to the old values it had and the amount of people who are against same sex marriage is pretty high and it will probably take something like a miracle to get people to think that it is okay.
My cousin, who is also my god brother means the world to me. I love him to death and he is gay. However he never said he was born gay but after college he just felt that his heart and mind were attracted to men, not women. I support him, I don't bas him, and he's not angry that same sex marriage is not allowed.
I think its fine if you are gay, but you can't turn a man and woman union into a same sex union and I'm against gay couples adopting children. Yes, people say that they get the same amount of love, attention, and care but its just difficult for the child to grow up and have to explain and be explained too that they have two mommy's or two daddy's. Its not fair for a child.
thats just my feelings on that. Don't bash me because I'm not bashing anyone, I didn't make the laws, and I can't change them. If I could I wouldn't. Marriage and adoption should be for heterosexual couples only (man/woman).
-
There's nothing wrong with sharing that opinion and belief, it only becomes wrong when people choose to act on it and suppress the rights of another group of people because it doesnt adhere to their philosophies. Then that becomes oppression and prejudice.
I believe the adoption argument is a lame one. Not all children are adopted, and because some believe that gays shouldn't adopt, they are depriving children of having good homes, where people will love and take of them. I'd rather see a child happy in an adopted home with people who love him than stuck in the horrible adoption and foster care system.
In Massachusetts, gays are allowed to adopt, the Church naturally didn't agree that they should, which is fine, they're perfectly entitled to feel that way. However, in response, the Church shut down all of it's adoption agencies in the State. I guess the Church feels its better to not even adopt children at all than allow gays to adopt. And that move really bothered me. Because it was completely unfair to the orphans.
Actually, according to recent polls, 55% of people all across the country are in favor of gay marriage. The margin is still fairly narrow, but it's obvious people's feelings are moving the other way.
The right-wing is losing it's political clout day by day, I mean, just look at the GOP line up for presidential candidates, Evangelicals don't like any of them. Americans are finally staring to understand the real issues, like Iraq, health care, and our education system. It really sickens me that every election year Republicans wave the gay marriage flag to get their right-wing base all revved up and ready to vote. But after every election year, we never hear about gay marriage again.
Any why? The Republicans don't care about gay marriage, they use it as a politcal selling point to get votes. They know there's a huge number of potential votes with Evangelicals and neo-conservatives, so they pander to them. And that's it.
-
55% of the people who actually took the poll.
Obviously Republicans dominate and as long as they dominate there will be no gay marriage. Most people voted for Bush just because they didn't want gay marriage to be a possibility.
Most people do not do polls but when it comes down to voting, they sure as hell will show up to vote against something.
As far as the loving home issue with gay parents, I'm just not in favor of that. I think its cruel no matter how much love is there a child with two same sex parents will be the center of jokes, ridicule, and constant humiliation. People are cruel, and most places are not going to hide how they feel when they see that. Maybe in Massachusetts they might not do that, but in most other places they will not stop hurting the child, parents, or the family because they are different in their eyes.
-
55% of the people who actually took the poll.
Obviously Republicans dominate and as long as they dominate there will be no gay marriage. Most people voted for Bush just because they didn't want gay marriage to be a possibility.
Most people do not do polls but when it comes down to voting, they sure as hell will show up to vote against something.
As far as the loving home issue with gay parents, I'm just not in favor of that. I think its cruel no matter how much love is there a child with two same sex parents will be the center of jokes, ridicule, and constant humiliation. People are cruel, and most places are not going to hide how they feel when they see that. Maybe in Massachusetts they might not do that, but in most other places they will not stop hurting the child, parents, or the family because they are different in their eyes.
Polls are generally good indicators of how the general public feels, because they're random. You can't take a poll in an extremely liberal and conservative area and just base your finds on that and apply it to the rest of the country, it doesn't work. And that's not the case with polls done by news outlets.
Republicans no longer dominate. Democrats have the majority in the Senate and the House.
I agree people are cruel. But justifying people's hate and biggotry by saying that people would normally react that way, and that it's expected that people would treat a child from a gay home with abuse - just perpetuates the problem.
There shouldn't even be that prejudice and hate to begin with. If there wasn't any, you wouldn't feel the need to "protect orphans" as you like to phrase it.
Become part of the solution, don't allow issues in society to continue by taking an apathetic stance to them.
"Gays shouldn't adopt because their adopted children would be treated unfairly by peers anyway. So why bother." Is a really sad thing to say, that's just trading one tragedy for another.
-
I could see where you're coming from, but the fact remains that there aren't enough straight couple out there adopting kids, and I think the possibility of being ridiculed for having two moms/dads is a small price to pay to have a family that loves you, instead of being a ward of the state and going from foster home to foster home.
Besides, kids (adults, too) can be complete jerks. Being made fun of pretty much comes with growing up. :/ If it wasn't gay parents, it'd just be something else stupid, like making fun of their shoes.
-
I could see where you're coming from, but the fact remains that there aren't enough straight couple out there adopting kids, and I think the possibility of being ridiculed for having two moms/dads is a small price to pay to have a family that loves you, instead of being a ward of the state and going from foster home to foster home.
Besides, kids (adults, too) can be complete jerks. Being made fun of pretty much comes with growing up. :/ If it wasn't gay parents, it'd just be something else stupid, like making fun of their shoes.
Thank god, I felt like I've been alone for most of this debate. lol
-
So basically what she is saying is,
She'd rather have the kids packed into a foster home with parents that can't really take time to bond with them or love them, rather than have them live with two same sex parents that would really care about them?
Or, perhaps she's trying to say she'd rather have the child live in an abusive home with heterosexual parents? Because then they could get made fun of their bruises and cuts instead of getting made fun of having two gay parents. And that would be SO much better, right?
Yes, people can be mean but you know what? Who the heck cares.
You shouldnt let other people's rude opinions change how you think about yourself of others. People need to stop being so judgemental and stop caring so much about what others think of them.
I think if two gay people want to adopt a child, then that is perfecly fine. End of story.
-
Thats right.
You can twist it any way you would like, my opinion stays the same.
I do not feel gay couples no matter how loving they are should be allowed to adopt a child.
-
eh I think it is fine for two gay parents to adopt children. Sure the kid will go through a hard time and stuff but it will only make them a stronger person once they grow up.
-
Thats right.
You can twist it any way you would like, my opinion stays the same.
I do not feel gay couples no matter how loving they are should be allowed to adopt a child.
TwilightCarnival didn't twist your opinion in any form, what she/he (sorry) said was very much based on reality.
-
Thats right.
You can twist it any way you would like, my opinion stays the same.
I do not feel gay couples no matter how loving they are should be allowed to adopt a child.
TwilightCarnival didn't twist your opinion in any form, what she/he (sorry) said was very much based on reality.
I did not say that TwilightCarnival twisted my words around, so don't make it seem like I did. :roll:
-
Thats right.
You can twist it any way you would like, my opinion stays the same.
I do not feel gay couples no matter how loving they are should be allowed to adopt a child.
TwilightCarnival didn't twist your opinion in any form, what she/he (sorry) said was very much based on reality.
I did not say that TwilightCarnival twisted my words around, so don't make it seem like I did. :roll:
Um. TwilightCarnival said, "So that's what she is basically saying - etc."
And you responded, "That's right, you can twist it any way you would like."
I'm pretty sure you're saying she put some spin on your opinion in some form or another.
Don't bother arguing semantics with me. I'm sorry that everyone basically shot holes in your argument.
-
Thats right.
You can twist it any way you would like, my opinion stays the same.
I do not feel gay couples no matter how loving they are should be allowed to adopt a child.
TwilightCarnival didn't twist your opinion in any form, what she/he (sorry) said was very much based on reality.
Im a she ;)
And Manda, WHY do you feel they shouldn't adopt children?
Just because it's not "biblical" or what ever doesn't mean it is wrong.
I don't get why people think gays are some kind of another species or something?
They are just normal people who happen to be different from you , why can't you accept that?!
-
Just because it's not "biblical" or what ever doesn't mean it is wrong.
Not to be some goodie-goodie, over religious freak here but, I don't think you understand that comprimising law, especially God's, is extremely wrong. If it's not approved of in the Bible, it's wrong.
-
I was going to say that everyone should agree to disagree but... nevermind, what Suicidalboobs said rubbed me the wrong way. lol Nothing against you dude.
God's law does not apply to the United States government. In the constitution there's this little stipend that dictates the seperation of church and state. We live in a secular country. God's laws do not (or rather, should not) apply to us as citizens of this nation.
You can choose to adhere to them privately if you so wish as a private citizen of a secular nation.
-
Thats right.
You can twist it any way you would like, my opinion stays the same.
I do not feel gay couples no matter how loving they are should be allowed to adopt a child.
TwilightCarnival didn't twist your opinion in any form, what she/he (sorry) said was very much based on reality.
Im a she ;)
And Manda, WHY do you feel they shouldn't adopt children?
Just because it's not "biblical" or what ever doesn't mean it is wrong.
I don't get why people think gays are some kind of another species or something?
They are just normal people who happen to be different from you , why can't you accept that?!
I really do not need to state anymore why I do not feel gay couples should not be allowed to adopt children. Its just my opinion, I was not arguing just stating something that I felt I disagreed with. :wink:
we all have our own views and opinions and that is mine.
-
Just because it's not "biblical" or what ever doesn't mean it is wrong.
Not to be some goodie-goodie, over religious freak here but, I don't think you understand that comprimising law, especially God's, is extremely wrong. If it's not approved of in the Bible, it's wrong.
I'm sorry, I know that it's technically an opinion, but you are wrong.
Part of being religious, especially Christian of any denomination is using the Bible to apply it to your own lives. What you are referring to is in the Old Testament and was probably written more than 4,000 years ago. The Old Testaments also bans eating of crawfish and pork and says that slavery is okay (as long as it's from neighboring countries). Looking at the Bible for moral guidelines is A-OK, but you need to get with the times. If you blindly follow the Bible, then you are depriving yourself of the individuality that religion and spirituality in general should enhance. You need to make decisions for yourself. You are, in a spiritual sense, less human because you are not thinking individually.
Jesus promotes ideas of love and community, but what you are doing is isolating and discriminating. That makes you a hypocrite. Anybody who uses the Bible as a weapon is a hypocrite. Love between human beings is sacred, whether it's between two men or two women or a man and a woman. Manda, I respect your opinion and always have. I disagree, but don't feel like getting in an argument.
Plus, the Bible needs to stay out of our government, as portions said.
-
I totally agree with everything Jophess said, and think that you have some very good opinions ^^
And true, if we did follow everything the bible said, a lot of things (like slavery) would still be allowed. And that is NOT okay.
But you know what? Manda, as much as I love to debate, I think I'm just gonna stop arguing now. I obviously can't make you see that gays ARE people and should have the same rights as everyone else, so Im just gonna drop this.
Ok?
-
Look this is just another discussion that will never get anywhere, just people getting defensive, arguing, yelling, and getting no where. It should just be dropped.
No matter what anyone says here you MUST respect their opinion. You cannot change someone or their opinions no matter how hard you try or want too. You should not be angry or hurt either because what you feel should matter most, right?
:)
Its not a big deal.
I'm not here to fight with you, and I don't mind anything you say because we all feel differently about so many different issues. Everything is fine with me. :)
-
Sorry, I said I wasnt gonna argue anymore, but think of this:
God is considered all loving, the Devil on the other hand is considered hateful. Therefore anyone who is hateful themselves thinks of the Devil as their God.
And seeing you're so hateful towards gays and their rights, and yet you're following the bible so closely, well, something doesn't seem right there. Dont you think?
-
That's all.
NOW Im done debating. Sorry I just cant help it.
Yes Manda, true, I can't change your opinion, and neither can anyone else.
So I guess I will just respect them.
-
great. :wink:
-
Manda, I'm suprised you're up at this time! You have to wake up early tomorrow for your KKK meeting. Don't forget to wash your pointy white hoodie!
-
Wixss :D
LOL you make me laugh boy!
(He's my buddy. Be nice to him.)
-
By the way,
I'm a bit tired so I may have read some stuff wrong... but if I read right then a bunch of kids stood up to people in politics?
If that's true, I think it's amazing! I love hearing stuff like that
-
Nope, you read it right. I think it was actually one kid, but Im not sure.
But yeah, that's great I think :D
edit: 100th post. oh yeah!!!
-
Manda, I'm suprised you're up at this time! You have to wake up early tomorrow for your KKK meeting. Don't forget to wash your pointy white hoodie!
Kindly STFU. You don't even know Manda. If you did, you'd know she ain't white.
-
Manda, I'm suprised you're up at this time! You have to wake up early tomorrow for your KKK meeting. Don't forget to wash your pointy white hoodie!
Kindly STFU. You don't even know Manda. If you did, you'd know she ain't white.
Yeah, he just found that out.
Sorry I know this off topic, but Will, didn't your username used to be m with some numbers or something? I rejoined the fourms & can't remember who is who. :roll:
-
Sorry I know this off topic, but Will, didn't your username used to be m with some numbers or something? I rejoined the fourms & can't remember who is who. :roll:
Yep yep yep. I changed my username when I became staff here to confuse the hell out of everyone. :)
-
Y'all are stupid.
-
Y'all are stupid.
And once again you prove that you never have a single intelligent thought to contribute to well, anything.
-
The amount of flawed logic in your post baffles me.
Uhh....
Marriage between two men is not identical to mariage between a man and a woman. Because marriage between two men is between two men and marriage between a man and a woman is between a man and a woman.
TAH DAH!
Just like a man going down on a woman is still straight sex but a woman going down on another woman is gay sex. And the only difference between the two acts is the gender of the individual performing the act.
See, it's nice to differentiate between things that are different by using different words.
In summary, "wow, you're dumb."
-
Not true. Since imperfection you are born that way. God did not create humans imperfect. They became imperfect after adam and eve screwed up. They were perfect before. Thus, all of us are unnatural. Don't ask me how these defects came about, but God didn't make them.
So what you're saying is "unnatural use" could mean anything? Because we are ALL unnatural? So, unnatural use of a man could mean "before marriage" or it could mean "using him as a table." It could mean anything. You have absolutely no idea. You DECIDE that it means "sexual pleasure" because that serves your purpose.
And grakthis, what's your opinion on this scripture:
1 Corinthians 6:9 What! Do YOU not know that unrighteous persons will not inherit God’s kingdom? Do not be misled. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men kept for unnatural purposes, nor men who lie with men, 10 nor thieves,...
Blatant mistranslation.
"The Greek words suggest not "homosexual" but "effeminate" or "morally weak or soft" or "cowardly."
"In summary, despite common interpretations of the words "malakoi" and "aresenokoitai" in modern times, there is no clear evidence which links them unquestionably to homosexuality in itself. Instead, in every case in which they are used, there is an implied connection with either prostitution or child molestation. Modern research shows us, however, that such connections are fallacious. There is no research which clearly demonstrates that there is any correlation between homosexuality and the "sins" referenced alongside it in Corinthians and Timothy. "
"The meaning of these texts, said to exclude homosexual people from the Kingdom of God, hinges on the meaning of two Greek Terms, `malakoi' and `arsenokotai.' Throughout history these terms have been translated variably (masturbatory, practicers of heterosexual anal sex, sodomites, catamites and the like). Suggested translations today still vary (morally loose, masturbators who waste their property, boys and their pederast partners, temple prostitutes serving men and women, gold-digging gay hustlers who pursue the elderly). No one really knows what these terms mean. There is no good reason to suppose they apply to consensual, respectful, homosexual acts per se, especially since such an interpretation would be in conflict with all the rest of the Bible."
http://www.otkenyer.hu/halsall/lgbh-cortim.html
-
I could see where you're coming from, but the fact remains that there aren't enough straight couple out there adopting kids, and I think the possibility of being ridiculed for having two moms/dads is a small price to pay to have a family that loves you, instead of being a ward of the state and going from foster home to foster home.
Besides, kids (adults, too) can be complete jerks. Being made fun of pretty much comes with growing up. :/ If it wasn't gay parents, it'd just be something else stupid, like making fun of their shoes.
Thank god, I felt like I've been alone for most of this debate. lol
She's actually wrong. There is an overabundance of straight couples wanting to adopt. The issue is what kind of child they want to adopt. And that is the same issue with gay parents.
The loving family comment is pointless. The same children that the straight couples are rejecting the gay couples would also reject.
-
Just because it's not "biblical" or what ever doesn't mean it is wrong.
Not to be some goodie-goodie, over religious freak here but, I don't think you understand that comprimising law, especially God's, is extremely wrong. If it's not approved of in the Bible, it's wrong.
The internet is not approved of in the Bible! OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
The amount of flawed logic in your post baffles me.
Uhh....
Marriage between two men is not identical to mariage between a man and a woman. Because marriage between two men is between two men and marriage between a man and a woman is between a man and a woman.
TAH DAH!
Just like a man going down on a woman is still straight sex but a woman going down on another woman is gay sex. And the only difference between the two acts is the gender of the individual performing the act.
See, it's nice to differentiate between things that are different by using different words.
In summary, "wow, you're dumb."
It basically boils down to one's definition and idea of the word marriage, and ours are obviously different. You missed the entire point I made in my post, I acknowledged that there was a difference in the gender of people being married, but marriage itself wasn't different - the concept of marriage, marriage as union, doesn't change from gay couples to straight couples. Thus, it's not different and shouldn't need another name.
Going back to your murder analogy, which was a pretty dumb ass analogy, murder is still murder, regardless of who is killed and why, it still falls under the umbrella concept of "murder". Marriage as well, should be a blanket concept to whomever marries, because marriage is still marriage regardless as to who is married.
"Sex" is a blanket statement that applies to all acts of sex, gay sex or straight - because it's still sex. There are different acts of sex, yes, so they are then categorized into different things.
There aren't different acts of marriage, there are different ceremonies, and different people being married, but the act of marriage and it's principle is not different itself.
I'm not going to bother splitting hairs with you, because all you ever seem to do is play the role of the devils advocate regardless of the position anyone takes. So whatever dude.
In summary, you still make no sense and your logic is still pretty flawed. Try again.
-
I could see where you're coming from, but the fact remains that there aren't enough straight couple out there adopting kids, and I think the possibility of being ridiculed for having two moms/dads is a small price to pay to have a family that loves you, instead of being a ward of the state and going from foster home to foster home.
Besides, kids (adults, too) can be complete jerks. Being made fun of pretty much comes with growing up. :/ If it wasn't gay parents, it'd just be something else stupid, like making fun of their shoes.
Thank god, I felt like I've been alone for most of this debate. lol
She's actually wrong. There is an overabundance of straight couples wanting to adopt. The issue is what kind of child they want to adopt. And that is the same issue with gay parents.
The loving family comment is pointless. The same children that the straight couples are rejecting the gay couples would also reject.
The majority of gay couples don't have any children to reject because many states prevent them or make it extremely difficult for them to adopt to begin with moron.
-
It basically boils down to one's definition and idea of the word marriage, and ours are obviously different. You missed the entire point I made in my post, I acknowledged that there was a difference in the gender of people being married, but marriage itself wasn't different - the concept of marriage, marriage as union, doesn't change from gay couples to straight couples. Thus, it's not different and shouldn't need another name.
So, gay couples and straight couples sometimes/often perform the same sexual acts.
Therefore, gay sex and straight sex are not different because the sex is the same, right?
Oh, but they are both "sex" right? So your issue is with a modifier? lolz!
Going back to your murder analogy, which was a pretty dumb ass analogy, murder is still murder, regardless of who is killed and why, it still falls under the umbrella concept of "murder". Marriage as well, should be a blanket concept to whomever marries, because marriage is still marriage regardless as to who is married.
Then why is it a "hate crime?" It's just murder. Why does it get a different name and additional jail time? It's not JUST "murder" anymore. It's become MORE than just murder.
Do you actually think a change in definitions of "marriage" would not come with special language for gay marriages? Because the existing language is designed specifically for opposite sex marriage.
"Sex" is a blanket statement that applies to all acts of sex, gay sex or straight - because it's still sex. There are different acts of sex, yes, so they are then categorized into different things.
Oh, so you're OK with calling it "Gay Marriage" vs "Straight Marriage?"
But you're not ok with "Marriage" vs "Homarriage?"
Hahahahahahahaha.
You are the worst civil rights activist ever. You're the kind that gives civil rights activists a bad name.
Like, I am standing here, on your side. I want to give gay men and women all of the EXACT SAME rights as straight couples. I want them to have the same laws, the same legal definitions, the same legal privileges as straight couples. I even defend the MORALITY of homosexual behavior QUOTING THE BIBLE.
And you want to argue with me over the DUMBEST thing in the world.
You are OK with a modifier, but you are horrified at the idea of a new word!
You should read 1984. We can get rid of "bad" and just say "not good." I mean, why should we use "bad" when we can just add a modifier to good!
We shouldn't say "sad" we should say "not happy!" Why use a new word when we can just add a modifier! I mean, in the end, we're talking about levels of "happy." It all refers to the same feeling!
There aren't different acts of marriage, there are different ceremonies, and different people being married, but the act of marriage and it's principle is not different itself.
Actually, the principles are totally different. I mean, even the law discusses the importance of bearing children in marriage. And that's not even including the various religious ceremonies.
All of the laws are designed to foster children. So a gay marriage alters the fundamental purpose of marriage. Which is fine, but the language of the laws would need to be changed to reflect this.
I'm not going to bother splitting hairs with you, because all you ever seem to do is play the role of the devils advocate regardless of the position anyone takes. So whatever dude.
lolz. You've been splitting hairs with me since your first post.
In summary, you still make no sense and your logic is still pretty flawed. Try again.
Son, I've forgotten more about both religion and civil rights than you even know exist.
You don't even know what you're fighting for anymore. You just want to rage against the machine.
Well, frankly, the machine doesn't give a fuck what you want to call your civil union. Use whatever word you want.
But the people as a WHOLE are what define language, and the people as a whole prefer to have different words to refer to different things.
And as a whole, we prefer new words to modifiers of existing words.
We would rather say "gay" than "man who prefers the company of other men." Because the former is specific enough and is simpler and conveys the meaning perfectly.
No one wants to say "marriage" and the have to qualify it by adding "oh, they are gay."
We just want 1 word that describes the different between a gay couple and straight couple.
If you don't like it, get pissed at the English language. Don't act like your rights are being stepped on.
-
I could see where you're coming from, but the fact remains that there aren't enough straight couple out there adopting kids, and I think the possibility of being ridiculed for having two moms/dads is a small price to pay to have a family that loves you, instead of being a ward of the state and going from foster home to foster home.
Besides, kids (adults, too) can be complete jerks. Being made fun of pretty much comes with growing up. :/ If it wasn't gay parents, it'd just be something else stupid, like making fun of their shoes.
Thank god, I felt like I've been alone for most of this debate. lol
She's actually wrong. There is an overabundance of straight couples wanting to adopt. The issue is what kind of child they want to adopt. And that is the same issue with gay parents.
The loving family comment is pointless. The same children that the straight couples are rejecting the gay couples would also reject.
The majority of gay couples don't have any children to reject because many states prevent them or make it extremely difficult for them to adopt to begin with moron.
Ok?
I mean, I don't have any children to reject because I am a single male.
But it doesn't matter... cause even if i COULD adopt, I WOULDN'T.
Do you see me throwing a fit about it?
Gay couples would hit the same roadblocks straight couples do.
So this is kind of a stupid line of arguing.
Find me a bunch of gay couples who will adopt 8 year olds taken out of crackhosues who's parents are spending 10-20 in jail and don't want to have anything to do with the kid anyways, and then we'll talk about the rights of gay couples to adopt.
-
Jesus christ, you still don't understand the definition of the word hate crime. If a gay person is murdered it's only a hate crime if they're murdered BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY. If a gay person is murdered for money, IT'S NOT A HATE CRIME.
Again, you and the sex talk, let me break it down in terms you'll understand.
Two penises together, and two vaginas together, are different from a penis and a vagina together. So, they're different acts of sex, even though it's still sex. :) Better now?
Yes, I am okay with a modifier, a new word isn't necessary. Under your logic I guess we'd also have to come up with a new word for gay sex, and get rid of the modifier for that.
Yes, I understand we're on the same side, but you're being a pain in the ass quite frankly, and honestly, you're the one that started the entire discussion between us, not me. I just wanted to express my half of the same side of the coin.
Alright, if the law expresses the importance of bearing children in marriage, I suppose heterosexual women and men who are infertile and unable to conceive due to a physical condition, illness, or an accident, shouldn't be allowed to marry then. Because they clearly couldn't adhere to your archaic definition and understanding of what it means to marry.
Anyways, I'm done arguing. I've already expressed my view profusely and that's that.
:)
Oh, and learn to speak for yourself. You are not the voice of the people.
-
Y'all are stupid.
And once again you prove that you never have a single intelligent thought to contribute to well, anything.
Yes but I still manage to annoy dumb twats such as yourself, so I'm quite content.
-
Well, I'm so far behind in the discussion now, i'm not gonna try to catch up.
Grakthis, you do make good points. But I still think, from the context of the scriptures, that it's still speaking of homosexuality. Especially of how the view was on the account of Lot when two angels came to his house.
"The internet is not approved of in the Bible! OMG!"
yeah, ok well, things not directly stated in the Bible (i.e. things not yet invented) would just be up to one's own good judgement, obviously.
-
I didn't mean, that US laws or any other laws should just be unimportant. Of course I'd follow US laws also. God's word does say to follow the higher authorities on earth ("pay ceaser's things to ceaser") unless it conflicts someway with Bible law. I don't just blindly follow, I reason.
I'd never use the Bible as a weapon, I do love my nieghbor and hate no one. But i just feel that if something's going against a law, then it's wrong.
I know somethings in the old testament were done away with, which is an entirely different discussion, but I don't think something like this would be done away with.
Sorry if i did rub someone the wrong way. It's just a discussion.
-
Y'all are stupid.
And once again you prove that you never have a single intelligent thought to contribute to well, anything.
Yes but I still manage to annoy dumb twats such as yourself, so I'm quite content.
Ignorance is bliss, so I don't doubt you're content. :wink:
-
portions for foxes, you are very immature.
and well, as i can see grakthis still has problems pfft
-
lol, jen.
I admit, that Andrew has a point, as much as it pains me. Older children and ones from the proverbial crackhouses do have a harder time being adopted than cute babies.
And, of course, there's no guarantee that you'd have a loving home. There are all kinds of people, an unfortunately not all of them are nice.
But, by allowing gay people the right to adopt, these kids would still have that much more of a chance to get out of the system.
-
Jesus christ, you still don't understand the definition of the word hate crime. If a gay person is murdered it's only a hate crime if they're murdered BECAUSE THEY'RE GAY. If a gay person is murdered for money, IT'S NOT A HATE CRIME.
Yes. Thank you, pff. I am quite aware how the law is written. But unlike you, obv, I also know how the law is actually applied.
Again, you and the sex talk, let me break it down in terms you'll understand.
Awesome! I love when people half as smart as me try to talk down to me... this should be entertaining.
Two penises together, and two vaginas together, are different from a penis and a vagina together. So, they're different acts of sex, even though it's still sex. :) Better now?
Hahahahahahahaa. See, you still don't get it. I guess I am giving you too much credit.
See, a man performing oral sex on another man is performing the SAME SEX ACT as a woman performing oral sex on a man.
So, they are NOT different acts of sex. The only difference is the two people involved.
Yes, I am okay with a modifier, a new word isn't necessary.
Maybe it's not "neccesary" but why is it "offensive?"
Are you offended that short pants are called "capris?" OMG! THEY ARE BOTH PANTS! WHY DO YOU NEED A DIFFERENT WORD FOR THEM?!? IT'S SO INSULTING TO PANTS!!
Under your logic I guess we'd also have to come up with a new word for gay sex, and get rid of the modifier for that.
That would be nice. I immagine we will eventually.
Yes, I understand we're on the same side, but you're being a pain in the ass quite frankly, and honestly, you're the one that started the entire discussion between us, not me. I just wanted to express my half of the same side of the coin.
No. Actually, YOU'RE being a pain in the ass.
Are you aware that the sticking point for millions of Americans is the word Marriage? They are perfectly willing to give gay couples the same LEGAL rights as straight couples, but they are not willing to call it marriage.
How stupid and petty is it that the gay community isn't happy with that? They don't want the same rights as straight couples. If they did, they would say "Ok... give us civil unions then." No. They want to REDEFINE A WORD that is already in common usage.
And guess what, it's setting back gay rights by a decade or more.
Alright, if the law expresses the importance of bearing children in marriage, I suppose heterosexual women and men who are infertile and unable to conceive due to a physical condition, illness, or an accident, shouldn't be allowed to marry then. Because they clearly couldn't adhere to your archaic definition and understanding of what it means to marry.
Wow, you're clueless. I hope you grow up someday and learn to actually have a conversation that doesn't revert to quoting the opinons of other people.
The law expresses the importance of bearing children in marriage because, in theory, a male and a female can marry for that purpose. It doesn't matter if they did in practice or not.
In theory, an infertile couple can still bear children through a surrogate mother or other fertility methods.
In the case of a gay marriage, there is no possibility of child bearing. Even a surrogate mother would not be THEIR child any more than my brothers step-daughter is his child.
It's the possibility of children that requires a distinct wording. Like it or not, the law still defines parenthood using genetic paternity first and foremost.
Anyways, I'm done arguing. I've already expressed my view profusely and that's that.
You sad little boy. You've been "done arguing" 4 times now. Learn some self-control.
Oh, and learn to speak for yourself. You are not the voice of the people.
Keep telling yourself that.
-
I'm not going to bother reading your post, because I really don't feel like dragging this on anymore, and I know if I read it I'll just want to retort back, so just have a really awesome day Andrew. :wink:
-
I read this whole thing, but i can't actually respond to it without looking stupid because I am way out of my depth. But I am going to post something smug here in the usual hipster fashion so that you will think I don't care. But I care so much that I desperatly need you to know how much I don't care.
Translated!
I love hipsters <3
-
I read this whole thing, but i can't actually respond to it without looking stupid because I am way out of my depth. But I am going to post something smug here in the usual hipster fashion so that you will think I don't care. But I care so much that I desperatly need you to know how much I don't care.
Translated!
I love hipsters <3
Oh look at you, trying to get the last word in everything as usuall. lol
Knock it off, you're acting like a douche bag and you're not doing yourself any favors by being one. :roll:
-
how about , not backing any candidate, the reason,lack of original ideas!
-
Portions for foxes, I hope that you honestly don't think anyone who is against gays being able to "marry" is a homophobic, hypocritical, past-dwelling, tradition-clinging radical.
I am all for gay rights, gays being able to adopt (even though I think the optimal parenting situation is a healthy mother/father one), gays having all the insurance benefits that married couples receive. . . I just don't understand why people like me always get clumped in with the religious fanatics. People seem to think you are either liberal and for gay marriage/rights or conservative and against gay marriage/rights. That's not true at all. I just think it'd be best for the sake of both gays and straights to differentiate between a gay union and a straight marriage.
There are still fundamental differences between the union of gays and straights. Unfortunately gay people cannot produce children, they cannot repopulate the world by their coupling. I am sorry if it offends you, but the union between a man and a woman is the default and most productive union that exists. I think it's special and deserves, if nothing else, it's own word. I'm sorry, but yes it is special. No, you cannot replicate it, no matter how much love you have between yourself and another homosexual. It is different. You cannot achieve full equality in that sense (at least not with today's technology).
And I agree with you that the divorce rate is a bigger dilemma, but that's a separate issue.
-
I read this whole thing, but i can't actually respond to it without looking stupid because I am way out of my depth. But I am going to post something smug here in the usual hipster fashion so that you will think I don't care. But I care so much that I desperatly need you to know how much I don't care.
Translated!
I love hipsters <3
Oh look at you, trying to get the last word in everything as usuall. lol
Knock it off, you're acting like a douche bag and you're not doing yourself any favors by being one. :roll:
IRONY! OH GOD! IT HURTS! IT HUURRRRRRRRRTTSSSS!!!!
You're such a bad internet sterotype. Like, I could have written your last 3 posts FOR you.
You: "I am nto arguing this with you because I am losing horribly."
Me: "Loser."
You: "OMG I AM NOT LETTING YOU GET THE LAST WORD BECAUSE THAT IS SO PATHETIC."
Me: "Dude, you just posted to get the last word. lolz. Fucking tool."
I already know what you're going to do next. But let's wait and see if you surprise me.
-
Portions for foxes, I hope that you honestly don't think anyone who is against gays being able to "marry" is a homophobic, hypocritical, past-dwelling, tradition-clinging radical.
I am all for gay rights, gays being able to adopt (even though I think the optimal parenting situation is a healthy mother/father one), gays having all the insurance benefits that married couples receive. . . I just don't understand why people like me always get clumped in with the religious fanatics. People seem to think you are either liberal and for gay marriage/rights or conservative and against gay marriage/rights. That's not true at all. I just think it'd be best for the sake of both gays and straights to differentiate between a gay union and a straight marriage.
There are still fundamental differences between the union of gays and straights. Unfortunately gay people cannot produce children, they cannot repopulate the world by their coupling. I am sorry if it offends you, but the union between a man and a woman is the default and most productive union that exists. I think it's special and deserves, if nothing else, it's own word. I'm sorry, but yes it is special. No, you cannot replicate it, no matter how much love you have between yourself and another homosexual. It is different. You cannot achieve full equality in that sense (at least not with today's technology).
And I agree with you that the divorce rate is a bigger dilemma, but that's a separate issue.
You're introducing spritiual issues into a legal and ethical discussion.
It's actually because of comments like "it is special" that gays so desperatly want to call their union "marriage."
If you'd stop pretending that the love between a husband and wife is any more special than any other love two people can feel for eachother then gays would stop desperatly yearning for the same bond.
There's no difference. You call it a different name to differentiate the genders of the people involved, not to differentiate the feelings the couples have for eachother.
-
Grakthis, umm, I didn't call it special bc of some divine love or emotional connection that the two people share... I said it was special because heterosexuals, unlike homosexuals, can reproduce. case & point. end thought.
Also, special doesn't mean holy, FYI. I'm not religious.
Stop being so condescending.
-
I SAID: No, you cannot replicate it, no matter how much love you have between yourself and another homosexual. It is different. You cannot achieve full equality in that sense (at least not with today's technology).
^^ Just so you know, I didn't mean that homosexual love cannot equal heterosexual love bc the love is not as powerful or strong. I meant that no matter how much homosexuals love each other, they cannot pop out a child. That's all I meant.
-
Grakthis, umm, I didn't call it special bc of some divine love or emotional connection that the two people share... I said it was special because heterosexuals, unlike homosexuals, can reproduce. case & point. end thought.
Also, special doesn't mean holy, FYI. I'm not religious.
Stop being so condescending.
Let's try this again, only I'll try to be less condescending this time.
I didn't say "holy" or "religious" either. I said spiritual. Which is completely different. If I had wanted to bring religion into it, I'd have said religion.
You said that the relgionship between a man and a woman is "special" in a way that a relationship between two men cannot be. If you mean it's "special" because it can produce offspring in a biological sense then you run smack into PFF's comments from earlier about sterile heterosexual couples and couples who do not plan to have children.
My counter to his point was about the language of the LAW and how it must be changed, but you don't seem to be talking about the law of the government, you seem to be talking about morality (however you define those things, be they based in religion, natural moral law, rational moral law, whatever) or biology. Which leaves you no room to differentiate between straight couples that cannot bare children and gay couples that cannot bare children.
So how do you distinguish? If that is the defining factor for "special" then do you support a different union for sterile couples?
-
Edit: I wrote too much, so I will boil it down: To me, the union between a man and woman is "special" bc of the potential for each man and woman to be born able to reproduce. Homosexuals are never born with the potential to reproduce amongst themselves. Not every male and female reach that potential, but the potential is their natural, default state.
Homosexual unions are not suffering from an abnormality that prevents them from reproducing with each other. They never could by default or nature, and never will naturally reproduce..... maybe someday with a lot of technological advancement they could be able to, but that's a different story.
-
Edit: I wrote too much, so I will boil it down: To me, the union between a man and woman is "special" bc of the potential for each man and woman to be born able to reproduce. Homosexuals are never born with the potential to reproduce amongst themselves. Not every male and female reach that potential, but the potential is their natural, default state.
Homosexual unions are not suffering from an abnormality that prevents them from reproducing with each other. They never could by default or nature, and never will naturally reproduce..... maybe someday with a lot of technological advancement they could be able to, but that's a different story.
Then, again, you're talking about spirituality.
Because, biologically, there's no distincation in "capability to reproduce" between a woman with a historectomy and a gay man. Neither is capable of bareing children without massive scientific assistance.
You can even take a woman who has a genetic defect that makes her unable to have children, such as serious autoimmune disesease and/or endometriosis. Someone who never had the potential to become pregnant.
I think maybe what you mean is that evolution, or whatever process created man-kind, has an evolved attachment that is different between a man and a woman than a man and a man. But I would argue that homosexual behavior is just as natural to a gay man or woman as hetersexual behavior is to a gay man or gay woman. Like, by definition, it is when that special attachment is aimed at the same gender.
I don't know... I mean, I can't really say I know you're wrong because I don't know any gay couples that have actually made lifetime commitments to eachother. But I can say I have met plenty of straight couples whos relationships were anything but "special."
And it's hard to have this discussion without including some views on morality (religious, utilitarian, whatever). From a position of rational moral law, two people should be allowed to enter into any kind of living contract they wish and there should be no LEGAL distinction in genders or in number of people entering into the contract.
-
What I'm trying to say is that the prototype, default female and male (the standard, if you will) have the capability of reproduction when they have sexual intercourse. The same capability does not exist for homosexual sexual intercourse, whether they have abnormalities or are what is thought of as perfectly healthy and anatomically correct.
Not all people fit the prototype, to be honest most people do not in some area (not necessarily in the reproductive sense), but there is still the prototype, healthy, standard female and male- and even if a person doesn't fit that bill, they still had the potential to be that way by definition of their being a man and a woman.
A gay couple never has the potential to reproduce. There is no potential for a man to be born able to bare a child from another man, and vice versa with a female. However, there is the natural and default potential for every male and female to be born able to reproduce with each other.
I feel like what I'm saying isn't that difficult to understand, but it seems like you are either missing my point or deliberately skating around it.
When I'm speaking of potential, I'm speaking of what it means to be a female! The book on that would say that they can reproduce when coupled with males! Every single female to be conceived has that potential by virtue of being a girl. And that's all I'm saying =\
It's not about spirituality. It's about biology... the scientific kind... lol.
-
What I'm trying to say is that the prototype, default female and male (the standard, if you will) have the capability of reproduction when they have sexual intercourse. The same capability does not exist for homosexual sexual intercourse, whether they have abnormalities or are what is thought of as perfectly healthy and anatomically correct.
Not all people fit the prototype, to be honest most people do not in some area (not necessarily in the reproductive sense), but there is still the prototype, healthy, standard female and male- and even if a person doesn't fit that bill, they still had the potential to be that way by definition of their being a man and a woman.
A gay couple never has the potential to reproduce. There is no potential for a man to be born able to bare a child from another man, and vice versa with a female. However, there is the natural and default potential for every male and female to be born able to reproduce with each other.
I feel like what I'm saying isn't that difficult to understand, but it seems like you are either missing my point or deliberately skating around it.
When I'm speaking of potential, I'm speaking of what it means to be a female! The book on that would say that they can reproduce when coupled with males! Every single female to be conceived has that potential by virtue of being a girl. And that's all I'm saying =\
It's not about spirituality. It's about biology... the scientific kind... lol.
I understand what you are saying, but it's like....
You have to go 5 layers deep to really understand anything. I'm working WITH you here, not against you.
You say "Man + Woman = special."
I say "why?"
You say "Because there is a potential for them to reproduce, in theory."
I say "what if there isn't in reality?"
You say "but there is in a world of forms (lolz plato!)"
I say "Why is that special?"
Because science and biology don't recognize a "potential" ability to reproduce in this context. Only an actual one.
So, I ask you to go a layer deeper and tell me WHY it is special for a couple that could, in theory if neither was defective, have children to be together?
What is the difference?
I am not being difficult, I am trying to understand why you draw the line there.
-
Because without repopulation life would cease to exist. I don't even know if I personally want kids, but I still find reproduction a special and unique process that occurs as a result of heterosexual intercourse.
I'm not meaning special in the "aww, how wonderful sense", but in the sense that it is the center of life as we know it. Excuse me though for using loaded language.
And yes, I do think that in this case it is important to not get caught up in the existentialism of abstract philosophy and to just commit to the obvious fact that reproduction is a usual result of male and female intercourse- even if whatever percentage of males and females may not be able to reproduce.
NO homosexuals reproduce. The general population of heterosexuals have the capability to reproduce, and those who cannot are not the default.
Obviously you have some other DEEP layers to get down to though that I just cannot comprehend with my inferior intellect. :roll:
-
So, you're talking about evolution or whatever mechanism encourages reproduction, essentially. That this mechanism has a "natural" bonding of a male and female pair as a result of the possibility of creating offspring.
I'll buy that. I mean, it makes sense.
But is that something you can argue that a LAW should be based on?
-
Sort of. But I'm not saying that because they can reproduce they must have some deeper emotional or spiritual connection/bond, or that they receive it once they have reproduced. I think homosexuals can be just as spiritually and emotionally connected. Yeah, all I'm saying is that it is the nature of heterosexual intercourse to create offspring - and even if some individuals aren't born with that, it's still the common nature.
And why can't this law be based on the empirical evidence that exists? I mean we have laws of gravity- and of course no one can say for sure that the laws of gravity may someday alter or whatever, but as far as we know this is how it is. In the same way, as far as we know heterosexual relationships are the only ones that reproduce (and I'm talking humans here).
Anyhow, I hope nobody thinks I'm saying homosexual relationships are not as good as heterosexual relationships. It's all very subjective!
-
grakthis quit blowing things out of proportion just so you can be right about everything....
-
Sort of. But I'm not saying that because they can reproduce they must have some deeper emotional or spiritual connection/bond, or that they receive it once they have reproduced. I think homosexuals can be just as spiritually and emotionally connected. Yeah, all I'm saying is that it is the nature of heterosexual intercourse to create offspring - and even if some individuals aren't born with that, it's still the common nature.
And why can't this law be based on the empirical evidence that exists? I mean we have laws of gravity- and of course no one can say for sure that the laws of gravity may someday alter or whatever, but as far as we know this is how it is. In the same way, as far as we know heterosexual relationships are the only ones that reproduce (and I'm talking humans here).
Anyhow, I hope nobody thinks I'm saying homosexual relationships are not as good as heterosexual relationships. It's all very subjective!
I understand your position about what you meant by "special." We're good there.
But when I say "law" i mean "as written down by the government of the united states."
Like, would we pass a law that says "Gravity is a natural law, therefore, we do not recognize anything that breaks gravity."
It's natural to have sex to produce off spring, but we don't make it illegal to use birth control.
If we start with the premise that male and female relationships are special because they are the "natural" evolution of life, why does the government have a place to legislate that people MUST behave according to the natural laws of life?
Is that the role we want for government?
Or do we want the government to maximize people's freedoms?
-
Lol- I'm not stipulating that if my premise were taken into consideration those who married would have to reproduce. They would just be protected in "marriage" because of the nature of heterosexuality. Those who have never had the potential to reproduce by way of their coupling would not be allowed to marry. That is all. =)
go garriage.
-
Because separating and branding them differently is the way to go.
-
Because separating and branding them differently is the way to go.
You dont have to brand them different or separate, because they already are.
The best part about this is if you tell someone who is gay they are the same as a straight man they would probably scoff and get insulted. However when if comes to gay marriage rights they can put that behavior on the shelf right?
I am not against gay marriage, but i am against gay people running around saying they are the same as everyone else. The same goes for feminists saying they are the same as men.
-
However, a straight man and gay man are both men, both human. In the eyes of the law, gays should not be treated as a subspecies. It's like saying a black man cannot legally marry a white woman or vice versa.
-
The differences between race and sexuality are not interchangeable. So many people play that card, but I feel that is a weak comparison that is just meant to make people feel guilty.
Not allowing a black man to marry a white woman is not the same as not allowing a man to marry another man. It's just not the same at all.
-
Lol- I'm not stipulating that if my premise were taken into consideration those who married would have to reproduce. They would just be protected in "marriage" because of the nature of heterosexuality. Those who have never had the potential to reproduce by way of their coupling would not be allowed to marry. That is all. =)
go garriage.
No. I don't think you're following me.
I mean, why should the law differentiate between those who are choosing to marry and are "special" and those who are choosing to enter into the same LEGAL contract but are not "special."
Why does the LAW care about the natural order of things?
I realize that PEOPLE will call it whatever they want... but why should the GOVERNMENT differentiate between those two pairings?
-
The differences between race and sexuality are not interchangeable. So many people play that card, but I feel that is a weak comparison that is just meant to make people feel guilty.
Not allowing a black man to marry a white woman is not the same as not allowing a man to marry another man. It's just not the same at all.
And I'm never going to change your opinion, so I'm not going to try.
-
The differences between race and sexuality are not interchangeable. So many people play that card, but I feel that is a weak comparison that is just meant to make people feel guilty.
Not allowing a black man to marry a white woman is not the same as not allowing a man to marry another man. It's just not the same at all.
It's really not.
You're sugesting that the government should pass a law that applies to one group of people because of factors they are BORN to.
Like, you even use it as your argument. The marriage of a male and female is special because it's a natural union that could, in theory, produce offspring. This is a fact of birth and not a decision being made.
Just like being born gay is a fact of birth (or a result of some event in early childhood) and not a decision being made by the person.
Just like being born white is a fact of birth.
Can you actually argue that it is GOOD for a law to be based on something that is nothing more than a fact of birth?
Should we have different laws for people born to different circumstances?
You can argue that it's a "natural" pairing all you want, but that argument can also be used to say that marriage between two white people is a "natural" pairing because that's how we developed in nature.
Tell me, if it were discovered that some aboriginal tribe in Australia had evolved such that they were biologically unable to breed with a man or woman from the US, would you make that "marriage" illegal?
It's a slipper slope. There are no circumstances under which you can justifiably deny someone a right JUST because he or she is born with specific genetic traits. Either he or she is human, and therefore deserves all rights that humans are given, or else he or she is not. There can be no subclassifications where some are given specific rights that others are not.
-
What makes a person gay is not even something that can be pinpointed. I do believe some people are born gay. I also think others develop that way as a result of their environment and/or life experiences. There is a huge spectrum of 'how gay' some people are or 'how bisexual' they are.
So, in sum, I don't think we can say for sure that every gay person was born that way - was predestined to be that way from conception or at some point in the womb.
Also, there are laws and programs based on factors of birth (race/sex) anyway, as far as I know. I see no problem in telling anyone that they cannot marry bc their bond is not one of a man and a woman, and that they must use another word for their bond. For the life of me I don't see what is so "offensive" about that.
-
Grakthis: You can argue that it's a "natural" pairing all you want, but that argument can also be used to say that marriage between two white people is a "natural" pairing because that's how we developed in nature.
^^ There is nothing more productive about two white people reproducing than any other pair of heterosexuals, so I don't see your logic here. But there is something more productive about heterosexuals reproducing than homosexuals repro- oh wait, they can't. My argument pretty much revolves around productivity and recognizing its uniqueness by allowing the denotation of a marriage to continue to encompass that.
You seem to imply that my scenario is unlaw-like because it follows some moral law instead of something logical or technical. In my opinion, however, it is very logical and technical and not about morality, spirituality, or the loaded meaning of the word "special". As a trait, heterosexuals reproduce.
I don't really feel like debating that much more about it. It's just my opinion! I wouldn't flip out if gay marriages were made legal- whatever, it wouldn't personally offend me. I would just ideally rather it get it's own name for the sake of clarity.
-
However, a straight man and gay man are both men, both human. In the eyes of the law, gays should not be treated as a subspecies. It's like saying a black man cannot legally marry a white woman or vice versa.
Pedophiles are human, so they shouldnt be treated as a subspecies right? Just because its morally atrocious i mean, jeez, they are still PEOPLE. Homosexuality, unlike pedophilia may be morally acceptable to a larger percentage of the population, but it is not 100%.
I know that argument is really screwed up but laws dont treat everyone equally. What were laws based on originally when they were created? What has changed laws over time?
Personally i have no issue with allowing homosexuals to marry, however are they morally accepted enough by society that the law should be changed at this time? Im not really sure. It could be more trouble than its worth. Im for it, but you cant just say "Oh they are human beings too so they should just get whatever they want"
edit: Yeah i know this argument is reallllly messed up, im just trying to point out that saying just because homosexuals are human they should be allowed to marry is a very weak argument. I could have also gone other routes such as murderers who carry no remorse, burglars etc.
-
I am talking about two consenting adults...not an adult abusing a child.
-
Yeah i know this argument is reallllly messed up, im just trying to point out that saying just because homosexuals are human they should be allowed to marry is a very weak argument. I could have also gone other routes such as murderers who carry no remorse, burglars etc.
Actually, it is a really good argument. Why should two consenting human beings not be allowed marriage?
Noelle, do you think that a straight marriage with no intent of reproduction should be allowed? What if one or both are incapable of reproduction? I know what you're trying to say, but it's still discrimination.
-
Yeah i know this argument is reallllly messed up, im just trying to point out that saying just because homosexuals are human they should be allowed to marry is a very weak argument. I could have also gone other routes such as murderers who carry no remorse, burglars etc.
Actually, it is a really good argument. Why should two consenting human beings not be allowed marriage?
Noelle, do you think that a straight marriage with no intent of reproduction should be allowed? What if one or both are incapable of reproduction? I know what you're trying to say, but it's still discrimination.
totally agree
-
I am talking about two consenting adults...not an adult abusing a child.
Homosexuality is viewed as a sin/immoral by many religious people, so your opinion unfortunately isnt the opinion of everyone in this country. Heck if you were in ancient greece and you said touching little boys is wrong you would probably be put in the arena with a lion. Homosexuality is not highly regarded, its a sad fact as i actually agree with you that they are doing nothing wrong, but im willing to vouch that not so many others agree. I agree with the age of consent laws etc though dont take my argument too far =)
And Jophess, if youre best argument is "yes it is" You shouldnt even bother posting. I never said they shouldnt be allowed, i said that lots of people view homosexuality as wrong THUS why the law didnt just pass with flying colors? MAYBE
-
Yeah i know this argument is reallllly messed up, im just trying to point out that saying just because homosexuals are human they should be allowed to marry is a very weak argument. I could have also gone other routes such as murderers who carry no remorse, burglars etc.
Actually, it is a really good argument. Why should two consenting human beings not be allowed marriage?
Noelle, do you think that a straight marriage with no intent of reproduction should be allowed? What if one or both are incapable of reproduction? I know what you're trying to say, but it's still discrimination.
I address heterosexual couples who cannot reproduce and do not want to reproduce in great length in this thread. You must not have read all my posts. I don't blame you because there were a lot of them, but basically I explain why these couples still should be allowed to marry under my premise.
What is discrimination to you is the dilution of the implicit design of marriage to me.
I am not against the rights, the benefits and the need for as strong an emotional commitment for homosexuals, I am just against the expansion of the WORD itself to encompass not only the bond of a man and woman but that of two men or two women. This is because I think there is enough difference in the nature of the relationships that I find it actually disrespectful to them all to try and lump them all together as if they are the same.
And I'm not saying that marriage is better than whatever would be the denotation for the homosexual equivalent, just that they are different and I think they should be seen as different.
Difference does not equal inequality between things.
-
Also, there are laws and programs based on factors of birth (race/sex) anyway, as far as I know. I see no problem in telling anyone that they cannot marry bc their bond is not one of a man and a woman, and that they must use another word for their bond. For the life of me I don't see what is so "offensive" about that.
Actually, there aren't. You cannot write a law that applies to one gender but not to another. You cannot write a law that applies to one race and not another.
There are a list of things about which you cannot discriminate in laws. Race, gender, religion... uh, I think other non-religious beliefs are on the list.
There is nothing more productive about two white people reproducing than any other pair of heterosexuals, so I don't see your logic here.
Actually, that's not necessarily true. There are whole lists of genetic diseases that are more likely in people of African (the continent, not the race) descent than people of western european descent.
More importantly, we simply don't know if there are biological advantages to offspring produced from people of similar racial origin or not. There might be.
What we do know is that we evolved that way in nature before sentience was developed, therefore, it must have been beneficial at some point, right?
And we know that some genetic stocks are more predisposed to intelligenec or physical prowess, so maybe we shouldn't allow marriages between people who have genetic diseases or who are dumb?
Because their offspring is less viable and beneficial than others?
You seem to imply that my scenario is unlaw-like because it follows some moral law instead of something logical or technical. In my opinion, however, it is very logical and technical and not about morality, spirituality, or the loaded meaning of the word "special". As a trait, heterosexuals reproduce.
Even if it follows a logical or technical law, that doesn't matter.
Like you could argue that a law based around eugenics is logical. You could argue that weeding out the dump and the weak is beneficial, logically. You can argue that freedom of speech makes the world more dangerous and that a government based on an enlightened dictatorship would be the most beneficial to our contry.
You can make a ton of "logical" arguments that go against the concept of human rights and freedom that this country is based on.
Just because the argument is "logcal" doesn't make it "a good basis for law."
Again, I am not opposed to the PEOPLE calling gay marriage whatever they want. But the LAW cannot distinguish.
-
I am talking about two consenting adults...not an adult abusing a child.
Homosexuality is viewed as a sin/immoral by many religious people, so your opinion unfortunately isnt the opinion of everyone in this country. Heck if you were in ancient greece and you said touching little boys is wrong you would probably be put in the arena with a lion. Homosexuality is not highly regarded, its a sad fact as i actually agree with you that they are doing nothing wrong, but im willing to vouch that not so many others agree. I agree with the age of consent laws etc though dont take my argument too far =)
And Jophess, if youre best argument is "yes it is" You shouldnt even bother posting. I never said they shouldnt be allowed, i said that lots of people view homosexuality as wrong THUS why the law didnt just pass with flying colors? MAYBE
Laws should not be based on the morality of the people.
If the majority of people think slavery is OK, do you think slavery should be legal?
Or do you believe the law has a job that is over and above the morality of the people it governs?
-
^ He's just explaining why, at this point in time, it hasn't seen much success... He's not arguing that it shouldn't be made legal BECAUSE of moral factors, just that those issues are part of what is holding it back now. I think he's been pretty clear about that.
Anyway Grak, I don't really feel like getting into biology and anthropology. I see how you threw in the Sick Cell Anemia reference, but I don't feel like getting into that debate.
I find there to be a significant difference between being able to create offspring, no matter what deficiencies two races mixing might create, and not being able to ever create offspring according to any of the laws of nature that exist by default of your sex relationships. You cannot equate a flawed something with an impossibilty, as I think you are trying to do.
-
I am talking about two consenting adults...not an adult abusing a child.
Homosexuality is viewed as a sin/immoral by many religious people, so your opinion unfortunately isnt the opinion of everyone in this country. Heck if you were in ancient greece and you said touching little boys is wrong you would probably be put in the arena with a lion. Homosexuality is not highly regarded, its a sad fact as i actually agree with you that they are doing nothing wrong, but im willing to vouch that not so many others agree. I agree with the age of consent laws etc though dont take my argument too far =)
And Jophess, if youre best argument is "yes it is" You shouldnt even bother posting. I never said they shouldnt be allowed, i said that lots of people view homosexuality as wrong THUS why the law didnt just pass with flying colors? MAYBE
Laws should not be based on the morality of the people.
If the majority of people think slavery is OK, do you think slavery should be legal?
Or do you believe the law has a job that is over and above the morality of the people it governs?
Laws generally are based on the morality or general social acceptability of actions as far as ive seen. Im saying that a lot of people view homosexuality as immoral/wrong and this is why i believe that they are now allowed to marry by law currently. However as time increases and more and more people accept homosexuality, the trend of allowing them to marry becomes more plausible. Could you imagine anyone trying to pass this law 50 years ago?
I never said anything about whether my beliefs as an individual have any effect, nor am insane enough to expect them to. When the majority of people believed slavery was okay, it was legal. Did everyone at that time believe it was ok? Im sure they didnt. Does the fact that enough people believe it to be ok make it ok? I personally dont agree.
I believe laws are more of a trend than anything else. Things that werent viewed as bad have been deemed bad by the government, such as weed, and made illegal. However newer laws have allowed it to be legal for medicinal purposes. Do you think this means weed was good 50 years ago, bad 20 years ago, and ok if its for medical reasons today?
-
Higher up men in ancient Greece did have sex with boys and male teens; however, it wasn't widely accepted.
-
Higher up men in ancient Greece did have sex with boys and male teens; however, it wasn't widely accepted.
Maybe in Sparta only the higher up men did. In Greece there were only a few cities that prohibited such relations. It was more widely accepted across the culture as the most spiritual form of bonding.
The fact of the matter is homosexuality is NOT that widely accepted.
I will continue to make the point that i have no problem personally with it, nor allowing them to marry. I dont want anyone thinking im some anti-gay asshole =) Im just well aware of plenty of people, for religious reasons and other, that are against it, or view it as a sin.
-
^ He's just explaining why, at this point in time, it hasn't seen much success... He's not arguing that it shouldn't be made legal BECAUSE of moral factors, just that those issues are part of what is holding it back now. I think he's been pretty clear about that.
Anyway Grak, I don't really feel like getting into biology and anthropology. I see how you threw in the Sick Cell Anemia reference, but I don't feel like getting into that debate.
I find there to be a significant difference between being able to create offspring, no matter what deficiencies two races mixing might create, and not being able to ever create offspring according to any of the laws of nature that exist by default of your sex relationships. You cannot equate a flawed something with an impossibilty, as I think you are trying to do.
Again, if we found a race of humans who could not mate with another race of humans to the point where we actually had speciation of humanity would you support not calling their relationship marriage?
Also, sickle cell anemia. It refers to the shape of the cell (like a sickle). Not sick cell.
-
Laws generally are based on the morality or general social acceptability of actions as far as ive seen. Im saying that a lot of people view homosexuality as immoral/wrong and this is why i believe that they are now allowed to marry by law currently. However as time increases and more and more people accept homosexuality, the trend of allowing them to marry becomes more plausible. Could you imagine anyone trying to pass this law 50 years ago?
I never said anything about whether my beliefs as an individual have any effect, nor am insane enough to expect them to. When the majority of people believed slavery was okay, it was legal. Did everyone at that time believe it was ok? Im sure they didnt. Does the fact that enough people believe it to be ok make it ok? I personally dont agree.
I believe laws are more of a trend than anything else. Things that werent viewed as bad have been deemed bad by the government, such as weed, and made illegal. However newer laws have allowed it to be legal for medicinal purposes. Do you think this means weed was good 50 years ago, bad 20 years ago, and ok if its for medical reasons today?
You're right. Many laws ARE based on popular opinions.
But that's not what I asked. I asked if they SHOULD BE.
-
^ He's just explaining why, at this point in time, it hasn't seen much success... He's not arguing that it shouldn't be made legal BECAUSE of moral factors, just that those issues are part of what is holding it back now. I think he's been pretty clear about that.
Anyway Grak, I don't really feel like getting into biology and anthropology. I see how you threw in the Sick Cell Anemia reference, but I don't feel like getting into that debate.
I find there to be a significant difference between being able to create offspring, no matter what deficiencies two races mixing might create, and not being able to ever create offspring according to any of the laws of nature that exist by default of your sex relationships. You cannot equate a flawed something with an impossibilty, as I think you are trying to do.
Again, if we found a race of humans who could not mate with another race of humans to the point where we actually had speciation of humanity would you support not calling their relationship marriage?
Also, sickle cell anemia. It refers to the shape of the cell (like a sickle). Not sick cell.
^ I know it's sickle cell... I just am more used to writing the word sick and I type fast, it came out wrong. I know what it is and I'm not stupid. Thanks.
Um, actually, if two races of humans branched off to the point where they couldn't reproduce at all, no chance, then we can talk about it. Because honestly that is so far into WHAT IF that it's not even worth comparing at this point.
-
You're right. Many laws ARE based on popular opinions.
But that's not what I asked. I asked if they SHOULD BE.
Helllll no.
-
You're right. Many laws ARE based on popular opinions.
But that's not what I asked. I asked if they SHOULD BE.
Good point. That's hard.
-
of course, they should be
that's the point
law makers are responsible for creating the best quality of life for the majority of the people
we vote for these lawmakers, they are elected by majority
laws pass based on the votes in the house, the senate, and the congress
that's the way it works
if this were any other 'interest' group there would be no debate
frankly, I don't know why anyone would want to try to serve this country anymore
there is no respect for the law
and every teenage blogger has the right to 'slam' a politician because his agenda only includes education, health care, and the environment. Not to mention that we are at war.
No one is asking you to change your lifestyle
Get over yourself and take a look at the bigger picture
-
That's true...but law makers also have a responsibilty to take care of the minority. Hence, the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. Also, it's one of the reasons that Supreme Court justices serve for life: so they can protect the minority (Roe v Wade, Brown v Board of Eduction). A majority does not have the right to oppress the minority.
-
protect them from what
who is being oppressed
I can find alot of married people who feel oppressed
edit: and those laws were passed bc the majority agreed
-
hahaha, the argument isn't about how people feel in a marriage, it's about whether or not there should be discremination due to one's sexual orientation. Denying someone a right* is oppression.
And, by right, I mean a social idea constructed by humans.
-
laws don't stop discrimination
-
After all the trouble straight people have with marriage why the hell do gay people want to get married? It's like wanting to be a part of the Bush administration right now because of all the love and harmony.
-
^ I know it's sickle cell... I just am more used to writing the word sick and I type fast, it came out wrong. I know what it is and I'm not stupid. Thanks.
Um, actually, if two races of humans branched off to the point where they couldn't reproduce at all, no chance, then we can talk about it. Because honestly that is so far into WHAT IF that it's not even worth comparing at this point.
I mean, it hasn't happened, but if you believe in evolution then you have to accept that it COULD happen. It's biologically possible.
Isn't it kind of childish to cover your ears and say "la la la I can't hear you" just because it puts a hole in your argument?
You need to be willing to think about possibilities instead of just current reality.
-
of course, they should be
that's the point
law makers are responsible for creating the best quality of life for the majority of the people
we vote for these lawmakers, they are elected by majority
laws pass based on the votes in the house, the senate, and the congress
that's the way it works
We elect people who we think have our best interests in mind, not people who share our opinions.
I choose a politician who will sometimes make decisions that are unpopular if they are genuinely in the best interests of the people.
A politician should not change his position every time his constituents do. He needs to stick to the beliefs and the traits that got him elected. That's why we have 2-4 year terms for political positions.
Personally, I think the Law and government has a responsibility to a higher standard than people do. People are allowed to make mistakes, the law isn't. People are allowed to be dumb, the law isn't. People are allowed to be racist, hateful, discriminating, biggoted, angry, unhappy, depressed, whatever but the law ISN'T.
The law should be the BEST traits of mankind. It should represent the peak of the best of humanity. It should not be the AVERAGE.
if we wanted the government to be the AVERAGE, we'd have a true democracy and not a representative democracy.
-
laws don't stop discrimination
Yes, they do.
They stop discrimination BY THE LAWS.
Stop being obtuse. We're not talking about the laws stopping discrimination by the people. The people can do whatever they want. But the LAW has to be held to a higher standard.
edit: apparently, Joan supports a tyranny of the majority on the minority. So whatever we do, we should leave the Kurds alone. Fuck the minority. Let'em die.
-
^ I know it's sickle cell... I just am more used to writing the word sick and I type fast, it came out wrong. I know what it is and I'm not stupid. Thanks.
Um, actually, if two races of humans branched off to the point where they couldn't reproduce at all, no chance, then we can talk about it. Because honestly that is so far into WHAT IF that it's not even worth comparing at this point.
I mean, it hasn't happened, but if you believe in evolution then you have to accept that it COULD happen. It's biologically possible.
Isn't it kind of childish to cover your ears and say "la la la I can't hear you" just because it puts a hole in your argument?
You need to be willing to think about possibilities instead of just current reality.
You act as though we don't need any further info on this subspecies to make a decision about it... as if we have all the criteria before us needed to make the decision on whether or not the two species should marry. It's childish, imo, to bring up a hypothetical situation that is so far beyond our comprehension of what the world would look like for that to happen. There are reasons that I might say yes they can marry and reasons that I might say no they cannot, but since we don't know anything about these "people", I find it dodging the point to even discuss them.
But bravo.
-
Wow, you guys are still debating this. Ah, there's no hope for me catching up in this.
So basically I can be screwed and try to join in and sound like a complete idiot, or leave now.
I think I'll just leave :D
-
You act as though we don't need any further info on this subspecies to make a decision about it... as if we have all the criteria before us needed to make the decision on whether or not the two species should marry. It's childish, imo, to bring up a hypothetical situation that is so far beyond our comprehension of what the world would look like for that to happen. There are reasons that I might say yes they can marry and reasons that I might say no they cannot, but since we don't know anything about these "people", I find it dodging the point to even discuss them.
But bravo.
Alright, apparently you're not actually smart enough to have this discussion. My mistake. I should have known better.
-
You might be a genius of BS buddy, but that's about it.
-
You might be a genius of BS buddy, but that's about it.
You're incapable of imagining speciation. I don't really think I need to say anything else beyond that.
-
I'm not incapable obviously. I can imagine it, but I think before I can make a decision on whether or not they should be allowed to marry, I'd need to know more about the differences that evolved, how the world functions at that point, etc. I'm not going to just say for sure one way or another whether or not these people should be allowed to marry- I think it's premature.
-
I'm confused...your whole argument is that straight people should get the title marriage because they can reproduce?
Then, should polygamy be legal? Should a woman be allowed to marry someone if she continuously has abortions? Should married people be allowed to use contraception? Should Britney Spears still be with Kevin? Do you want to give her more? Do all cows have spots? Do cats bark?
-
I'm not incapable obviously. I can imagine it, but I think before I can make a decision on whether or not they should be allowed to marry, I'd need to know more about the differences that evolved, how the world functions at that point, etc. I'm not going to just say for sure one way or another whether or not these people should be allowed to marry- I think it's premature.
You said, and I QUOTE:
"It's childish, imo, to bring up a hypothetical situation that is so far beyond our comprehension of what the world would look like for that to happen"
There is absolutly no reason to assume in my descrption that this new species of human is different from us in any relevant way. If they were, i'd have stipulated that.
They are HUMAN. Maybe they are taller, or shorter, or have darker skin or lighter skin, or purple hair and blue feet, it doesn't matter.
They are humans who are a different species and we cannot breed with them as a result.
But that is beyond your comprehension, right?
-
Unlike you, I don't posit that I can make such a legal decision based on my own meandering imagination.
Evolution takes a long time in most cases and as far as I know it'd take a lot of time for this new "species" to come into being without our own manipulation. I'm just saying that we don't know what the state of the world will be at that point in time to make a decision about the laws that should be in place.
-
I'm confused...your whole argument is that straight people should get the title marriage because they can reproduce?
Then, should polygamy be legal? Should a woman be allowed to marry someone if she continuously has abortions? Should married people be allowed to use contraception? Should Britney Spears still be with Kevin? Do you want to give her more? Do all cows have spots? Do cats bark?
You apparently didnt read WHY thats her argument, or if you did you didnt understand it. So yes, you are definitely confused.
-
I have no problem with polygamy as long as all parties are consenting and of age. I don't think of it as an ideal relationship, I'd never want that for myself, but I don't personally care. Also, serial abortionists can marry under my premise. They're probably not the type of person I'd want to get to know and I wouldn't condone their behavior, but they can reproduce, no? Mmmm... everything else you said I also agree with... and Idc if Britney is with Kevin. They are both cuhrazee.
-
Unlike you, I don't posit that I can make such a legal decision based on my own meandering imagination.
So you're not smart enough. It's ok. Just go ahead and say it.
You should already read up on advanced physics before you make fun of people who discuss, debate and even prove theories based on things we cannot actually do or do not actually exist.
Evolution takes a long time in most cases and as far as I know it'd take a lot of time for this new "species" to come into being without our own manipulation. I'm just saying that we don't know what the state of the world will be at that point in time to make a decision about the laws that should be in place.
I didn't ask about a hypothetical distant future where everything is different. Imagine they existed right now. Imagine a spaceship landed right now with people on it who were from a distant world but genetically they were human only a different species of human. The spaceship represents the last of their people because their planet was destroyed and they made an arc ship to escape. There are thousands of them.
Would you let one of these space-men marry a human in your legal vision?
-
If they can reproduce, probably. If not, no. If for some reason they bring down a plague upon our race and everyone starts dying, or all their children are born deformed and screwy, then even if they can reproduce I don't think it would be logical to allow the law to marry them. And if their presence causes a plague upon us, I don't think it'd be logical to allow them near us. Yay for bringing science fiction into reality.
God Grak, I bow down to you and your infinite wisdom.
-
Unlike you, I don't posit that I can make such a legal decision based on my own meandering imagination.
So you're not smart enough. It's ok. Just go ahead and say it.
You should already read up on advanced physics before you make fun of people who discuss, debate and even prove theories based on things we cannot actually do or do not actually exist.
I hate to break it to you, but what we are discussing is not physics. Here we go again with comparing very dissimilar situations... I've heard nothing but your imagination conjuring up science fiction. Give me the facts, dear Prophet. I'm sure not much will have changed by the time the human race splits in 2... 3? 4? Right? Not enough that we can't, in 2007, dictate the law for that period of time. Surely not.
-
If they can reproduce, probably. If not, no. If for some reason they bring down a plague upon our race and everyone starts dying, or all their children are born deformed and screwy, then even if they can reproduce I don't think it would be logical to allow the law to marry them. And if their presence causes a plague upon us, I don't think it'd be logical to allow them near us. Yay for bringing science fiction into reality.
God Grak, I bow down to you and your infinite wisdom.
I didn't say a word about a plague. Why are you introducing non-facts into this scenario.
If I asked you "What is 1+1?" would you say "that depends. Like, if we're asking what is 1+1+200 then it's 202. But if it's just 1+1 then it's 2."
Uh... I didn't ask what 1+1+200 is. I asked what 1+1 is. Stop being stupid.
science fiction is more real than you know. 50 years ago they would have told you the internet was science fiction.
So you'd support disallowing two humans who are genetically incapable of reproducing to marry.
Good. Be consistent. It's completely retarded and people will laugh at you anywhere that you express this opinion, but atleast you're being consistently retarded.
-
I hate to break it to you, but what we are discussing is not physics. Here we go again with comparing very dissimilar situations... I've heard nothing but your imagination conjuring up science fiction. Give me the facts, dear Prophet. I'm sure not much will have changed by the time the human race splits in 2... 3? 4? Right? Not enough that we can't, in 2007, dictate the law for that period of time. Surely not.
Aren't you like 20 something now? Shouldn't you be more mature and, well, less clueless by now? Or are you one of those ditzy types who can't think beyond the 15 meters in which she lives?
You know that there is a strongly supported theory of life on earth that says the first living cells came from space, right?
So, who's to say the same species of early life didn't fall on a similar planet to earth and a remarkably similar species didn't evolve that is, in every psychological and physical way, human except they are incapable of reproducing with us?
This is in no way impossible. I mean, if you presume that evolution happened this way once, why not twice?
And we're not just talking about laws. We're talking about the philosophical basis for a law.
Forget physics, the entire basis of causality and time travel are debated by scientists. Are you suggesting we shouldn't discuss these things because they haven't happened yet? Even though we have about 6 theories by which causality could be broken?
Do you refuse to consider possible outcomes of your actions because they haven't happened yet? "I am not going to worry about what happens when I drop this rock on my foot, because it hasn't happened yet."
Pathetic.
-
I just want to point out that in science you have to have a control group and you have to have a theory which is fallible, that is, can be disproven and repeatable. It has to be able to be disproven empirically.
-
I'm confused...your whole argument is that straight people should get the title marriage because they can reproduce?
Then, should polygamy be legal? Should a woman be allowed to marry someone if she continuously has abortions? Should married people be allowed to use contraception? Should Britney Spears still be with Kevin? Do you want to give her more? Do all cows have spots? Do cats bark?
You apparently didnt read WHY thats her argument, or if you did you didnt understand it. So yes, you are definitely confused.
I don't care about WHY that's her argument, I care about THE argument.
Shit, her mother could have been married, became sterile and got a divorce from it...and that could be WHY that's her argument (not saying it is, just throwing it out there).
-
Are you too stupid to look under my avatar and see that I am not 20, but 22?
And I exaggerated on purpose, in case you didn't catch on. Of course it's possible for there to be a non-threatening, closely related other species out there and our only significant difference would be the inability to reproduce. But uh, under my premise where everyone gets the same benefits, etc, other than the word marriage, what is so wrong with having another category for the type of bond between the "aliens" & us that also cannot reproduce because they are dissimilar from us? Even if they are almost identical to us, what is so stupid about giving them their own version of marriage, with it's own legal name.
And now that I think about it, those aliens who can reproduce with us shouldn't be able to marry either. Oops. My bad. I know what 1+1= and now that I"m mulling it over even if these aliens almost equal 1, they are off a few decimals, so that doesn't work. Unless they are evolved exactly the same as us, they lose. haha.
I wouldn't push this in a court of law personally, I don't really care. I just think new words are helpful and maintain clarity and help to keep words from being diluted.
And at this point I'm just having fun. KISS MY BUTT GRAK
-
Oh, and PS, just because they are similar to us doesn't mean it's stupid to consider they may carry other diseases and viruses to spread to us... so it'd be best to be careful of any laws built up around these new aliens when they first arrive. I exaggerated by calling upon a plague, but in theory it's not ridiculous as you tried to make it sound.
-
I don't care about WHY that's her argument, I care about THE argument.
You cant just walk around making arguments without anything to back up your claim/theory/idea. So if you care about the argument you should really try to understand WHY the argument is being made. You cant just dumb down anything you feel like because you cant keep up with basic concepts.
-
THE argument is pretty simple. It's not made to insult or discriminate. It simply differentiates. I don't see a problem with differentiation. =)
-
Are you too stupid to look under my avatar and see that I am not 20, but 22?
And I exaggerated on purpose, in case you didn't catch on. Of course it's possible for there to be a non-threatening, closely related other species out there and our only significant difference would be the inability to reproduce. But uh, under my premise where everyone gets the same benefits, etc, other than the word marriage, what is so wrong with having another category for the type of bond between the "aliens" & us that also cannot reproduce because they are dissimilar from us? Even if they are almost identical to us, what is so stupid about giving them their own version of marriage, with it's own legal name.
And now that I think about it, those aliens who can reproduce with us shouldn't be able to marry either. Oops. My bad. I know what 1+1= and now that I"m mulling it over even if these aliens almost equal 1, they are off a few decimals, so that doesn't work. Unless they are evolved exactly the same as us, they lose. haha.
I wouldn't push this in a court of law personally, I don't really care. I just think new words are helpful and maintain clarity and help to keep words from being diluted.
And at this point I'm just having fun. KISS MY BUTT GRAK
I think new words are helpful and maintain clarity as well. If we allowed gay marriage, I would probably choose not to call it marriage.
But that's the concern of language, not of the law.
-
Oh, and PS, just because they are similar to us doesn't mean it's stupid to consider they may carry other diseases and viruses to spread to us... so it'd be best to be careful of any laws built up around these new aliens when they first arrive. I exaggerated by calling upon a plague, but in theory it's not ridiculous as you tried to make it sound.
That's not the point.
When someone introduces a hypothetical situation, you don't start changing their hypothetical situation. You take it at face value and answer the question.
Of course IRL it's plausible that they would carry totally different and potentially devistating micro organisms. But that's not the point. I didn't present that as part of the hypothetical situation.
-
I just want to point out that in science you have to have a control group and you have to have a theory which is fallible, that is, can be disproven and repeatable. It has to be able to be disproven empirically.
Simply not true. Because, as we all know, psychology is still considered a science. But thanks for quoting Karl Popper at us. I am sure there are people here who haven't had philosophy 101 who appreciate the insight.
-
Oh, and PS, just because they are similar to us doesn't mean it's stupid to consider they may carry other diseases and viruses to spread to us... so it'd be best to be careful of any laws built up around these new aliens when they first arrive. I exaggerated by calling upon a plague, but in theory it's not ridiculous as you tried to make it sound.
That's not the point.
When someone introduces a hypothetical situation, you don't start changing their hypothetical situation. You take it at face value and answer the question.
Of course IRL it's plausible that they would carry totally different and potentially devistating micro organisms. But that's not the point. I didn't present that as part of the hypothetical situation.
Ok, well I was just playing "what if" because you were.
-
Are you too stupid to look under my avatar and see that I am not 20, but 22?
And I exaggerated on purpose, in case you didn't catch on. Of course it's possible for there to be a non-threatening, closely related other species out there and our only significant difference would be the inability to reproduce. But uh, under my premise where everyone gets the same benefits, etc, other than the word marriage, what is so wrong with having another category for the type of bond between the "aliens" & us that also cannot reproduce because they are dissimilar from us? Even if they are almost identical to us, what is so stupid about giving them their own version of marriage, with it's own legal name.
And now that I think about it, those aliens who can reproduce with us shouldn't be able to marry either. Oops. My bad. I know what 1+1= and now that I"m mulling it over even if these aliens almost equal 1, they are off a few decimals, so that doesn't work. Unless they are evolved exactly the same as us, they lose. haha.
I wouldn't push this in a court of law personally, I don't really care. I just think new words are helpful and maintain clarity and help to keep words from being diluted.
And at this point I'm just having fun. KISS MY BUTT GRAK
I think new words are helpful and maintain clarity as well. If we allowed gay marriage, I would probably choose not to call it marriage.
But that's the concern of language, not of the law.
Well then we aren't really that far off base in terms of our opinions. I would actually be fine with calling it, legally and verbally, "gay marriage". However, I know that people are not going to go around calling themselves "gay married". It will just become "married", and for the sake of clarity that is why I favor the term "garried". I joke about it, but I think it could be a good thing, too.
It is a concern of language, but at the same time language & law have their meshing points. What something is called can be a legal matter!
-
grakthis is going to hell
-
I just want to point out that in science you have to have a control group and you have to have a theory which is fallible, that is, can be disproven and repeatable. It has to be able to be disproven empirically.
Simply not true. Because, as we all know, psychology is still considered a science. But thanks for quoting Karl Popper at us. I am sure there are people here who haven't had philosophy 101 who appreciate the insight.
The fundamentals of psychology were subject to that standard. The stuff you read in beginning textbooks. You can have a scientific idea which is eloquent, but it's validity within the realm of scientific fact is still to this day subject to that standard.
From the way that you state your arguments in reference to math, science, philosophy, and law, you seem confused on the standards of validity each one is subject too.
Noelle's argument is based on life science so you can throw all your references of math and philosophy kindly out the window unless you have a genius' new revelation on the matter. Which you won't do because then you wouldn't have an argument.
The very fact that you have been talking about it for this amount of time and haven't attacked the very premise her whole argument is based on shows her argument is solid --attacked it within the discipline of life science itself. Is there any established argument you can think of that refutes her claim? We can talk about scientific ideas all day, but in the end it has to have empirical validity, not just theoretical conjecture, to be attacked directly.
-
The fundamentals of psychology were subject to that standard. The stuff you read in beginning textbooks. You can have a scientific idea which is eloquent, but it's validity within the realm of scientific fact is still to this day subject to that standard.
Scientific fact is a misnomer. Science doesn't believe in fact. Only things that haven't been disproven yet.
From the way that you state your arguments in reference to math, science, philosophy, and law, you seem confused on the standards of validity each one is subject too.
Oh, so now there's not just a standard for "science," there's a different standard for each subject? Do you just constantly change your position until it's eventually right? Is that how this works?
Noelle's argument is based on life science so you can throw all your references of math and philosophy kindly out the window unless you have a genius' new revelation on the matter. Which you won't do because then you wouldn't have an argument.
Right. So, the standards of hypothetical situations are different for each science. lolz.
Man. This keeps getting better and better.
The very fact that you have been talking about it for this amount of time and haven't attacked the very premise her whole argument is based on shows her argument is solid --attacked it within the discipline of life science itself. Is there any established argument you can think of that refutes her claim? We can talk about scientific ideas all day, but in the end it has to have empirical validity, not just theoretical conjecture, to be attacked directly.
The very fact that you are named Tylor is proof in and of itself that I am right.
Oh, wait, we're not making up non-sensical arguments? You actually think you're saying something relevant here?
If someone presents a theory based on biology or life sciences and applies it to the Law, and what I attack is her application, then maybe it might occur to a few of those dozen active braincells you have left that I'm not disagreeing with her position on life sciences but instead I am disagreeing with her application of that position to the law?
I know, I know. It's a major stretch for you. But if you put some real time into it and think REALLY hard, it might make sense to you.
If it still doesn't, then I recomend you stop talking.
-
Are you too stupid to look under my avatar and see that I am not 20, but 22?
And I exaggerated on purpose, in case you didn't catch on. Of course it's possible for there to be a non-threatening, closely related other species out there and our only significant difference would be the inability to reproduce. But uh, under my premise where everyone gets the same benefits, etc, other than the word marriage, what is so wrong with having another category for the type of bond between the "aliens" & us that also cannot reproduce because they are dissimilar from us? Even if they are almost identical to us, what is so stupid about giving them their own version of marriage, with it's own legal name.
And now that I think about it, those aliens who can reproduce with us shouldn't be able to marry either. Oops. My bad. I know what 1+1= and now that I"m mulling it over even if these aliens almost equal 1, they are off a few decimals, so that doesn't work. Unless they are evolved exactly the same as us, they lose. haha.
I wouldn't push this in a court of law personally, I don't really care. I just think new words are helpful and maintain clarity and help to keep words from being diluted.
And at this point I'm just having fun. KISS MY BUTT GRAK
I think new words are helpful and maintain clarity as well. If we allowed gay marriage, I would probably choose not to call it marriage.
But that's the concern of language, not of the law.
Well then we aren't really that far off base in terms of our opinions. I would actually be fine with calling it, legally and verbally, "gay marriage". However, I know that people are not going to go around calling themselves "gay married". It will just become "married", and for the sake of clarity that is why I favor the term "garried". I joke about it, but I think it could be a good thing, too.
It is a concern of language, but at the same time language & law have their meshing points. What something is called can be a legal matter!
Yeah. It's not your opinion on differntiation that I have a problem with. I think diferentiation is good.
It's your desire to include that in the law. I don't think the law has a place discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender.
-
I think of it this way. I can't go around legally calling myself African American when I am in fact white and of European descent. I don't think my lie could hold up in a court of law if my ancestry were traced, because aren't races in some way protected by the law by way of their definition? If definitions aren't held up to the law, at least in these cases of race & gender, then what is the purpose of defining them? We could all just be human. We wouldn't need to have different races distinguished. We could all just be married. We wouldn't need to have different unions distinguished. You see my argument?
And that is the reason why I think the definitions for these unions should be considered more than just a communicatory issue.
-
I think of it this way. I can't go around legally calling myself African American when I am in fact white and of European descent. I don't think my lie could hold up in a court of law if my ancestry were traced, because aren't races in some way protected by the law by way of their definition? If definitions aren't held up to the law, at least in these cases of race & gender, then what is the purpose of defining them? We could all just be human. We wouldn't need to have different races distinguished. We could all just be married. We wouldn't need to have different unions distinguished. You see my argument?
And that is the reason why I think the definitions for these unions should be considered more than just a communicatory issue.
Races are not protected except in that minorities are granted an enforced equal hiring status by employment laws. Which is part of why those employment laws are so hotly contested.
-
I think of it this way. I can't go around legally calling myself African American when I am in fact white and of European descent. I don't think my lie could hold up in a court of law if my ancestry were traced, because aren't races in some way protected by the law by way of their definition? If definitions aren't held up to the law, at least in these cases of race & gender, then what is the purpose of defining them? We could all just be human. We wouldn't need to have different races distinguished. We could all just be married. We wouldn't need to have different unions distinguished. You see my argument?
And that is the reason why I think the definitions for these unions should be considered more than just a communicatory issue.
Races are not protected except in that minorities are granted an enforced equal hiring status by employment laws. Which is part of why those employment laws are so hotly contested.
As far as I know, there are more legalities involved in race and sex than just affirmative action. Otherwise anyone could choose to call themselves any race or sex and there would nothing, legally, that anyone could do about it.... is that the case? lol. I feel like calling myself a male Puerto Rican today.
-
The fundamentals of psychology were subject to that standard. The stuff you read in beginning textbooks. You can have a scientific idea which is eloquent, but it's validity within the realm of scientific fact is still to this day subject to that standard.
Scientific fact is a misnomer. Science doesn't believe in fact. Only things that haven't been disproven yet.
You are simply wrong about that. A fact is something that can be disproven or proven. There are facts that have been establsihed enough they call them Scientific Laws. Untill disproven, if ever, they are considered true facts and constructions once established.
From the way that you state your arguments in reference to math, science, philosophy, and law, you seem confused on the standards of validity each one is subject too.
Oh, so now there's not just a standard for "science," there's a different standard for each subject? Do you just constantly change your position until it's eventually right? Is that how this works?
It's not a change in position! This shows ignorance on your part. They are called disaplines for a reason. Acadamia would agree with me. The standards of validity are different because each subject's aim is different in what it is supposed to establish in the material the subject's disapline deals with.
Noelle's argument is based on life science so you can throw all your references of math and philosophy kindly out the window unless you have a genius' new revelation on the matter. Which you won't do because then you wouldn't have an argument.
Right. So, the standards of hypothetical situations are different for each science. lolz.
No, there is a different standard with every academic disapline, for one. And there is a different history and culture for each science.
Man. This keeps getting better and better.
[ :roll: ]
The very fact that you have been talking about it for this amount of time and haven't attacked the very premise her whole argument is based on shows her argument is solid --attacked it within the discipline of life science itself. Is there any established argument you can think of that refutes her claim? We can talk about scientific ideas all day, but in the end it has to have empirical validity, not just theoretical conjecture, to be attacked directly.
The very fact that you are named Tylor is proof in and of itself that I am right.
nonsense.
Oh, wait, we're not making up non-sensical arguments? You actually think you're saying something relevant here?
Yes.
If someone presents a theory based on biology or life sciences and applies it to the Law, and what I attack is her application, then maybe it might occur to a few of those dozen active braincells you have left that I'm not disagreeing with her position on life sciences but instead I am disagreeing with her application of that position to the law?
I saw that from when you both started making your arguments on it. I just want to keep you from making scientific nonsense and passing it off as legitamate. Because obviously You don't know what the hell you are talking about in that manner. Argue her application of it all you want, just don't touch arguments you have no idea how to approach correctly.
I think people enjoy arguing with you, but sometimes your arguments become so unweildly with BS, people are no longer concerned with making proper arguments but with correcting all the errant statements and propositions you make. It reminds one of pruning a tree. Sometimes after pruning all the branches with no success your best option seems to chop the tree off at the trunk. I'm sure many of us have come to the point, at one point or another, of wanting to chop off your intellect at the neck.
I know, I know. It's a major stretch for you. But if you put some real time into it and think REALLY hard, it might make sense to you.
Nah, I'm already ahead of you. You can only chop off one errant branch at a time and do a good job of it.
If it still doesn't, then I recomend you stop talking.
Not a chance.
-
As far as I know, there are more legalities involved in race and sex than just affirmative action. Otherwise anyone could choose to call themselves any race or sex and there would nothing, legally, that anyone could do about it.... is that the case? lol. I feel like calling myself a male Puerto Rican today.
I think that is the case until your gender is defined by law.
You can call yourself whatever you want right up until you are trying to file a lawsuit for sexual discrimination or whatever.
-
The fundamentals of psychology were subject to that standard. The stuff you read in beginning textbooks. You can have a scientific idea which is eloquent, but it's validity within the realm of scientific fact is still to this day subject to that standard.
Scientific fact is a misnomer. Science doesn't believe in fact. Only things that haven't been disproven yet.
You are simply wrong about that. A fact is something that can be disproven or proven. There are facts that have been establsihed enough they call them Scientific Laws. Untill disproven, if ever, they are considered true facts and constructions once established.
From the way that you state your arguments in reference to math, science, philosophy, and law, you seem confused on the standards of validity each one is subject too.
Oh, so now there's not just a standard for "science," there's a different standard for each subject? Do you just constantly change your position until it's eventually right? Is that how this works?
It's not a change in position! This shows ignorance on your part. They are called disaplines for a reason. Acadamia would agree with me. The standards of validity are different because each subject's aim is different in what it is supposed to establish in the material the subject's disapline deals with.
Noelle's argument is based on life science so you can throw all your references of math and philosophy kindly out the window unless you have a genius' new revelation on the matter. Which you won't do because then you wouldn't have an argument.
Right. So, the standards of hypothetical situations are different for each science. lolz.
No, there is a different standard with every academic disapline, for one. And there is a different history and culture for each science.
Man. This keeps getting better and better.
[ :roll: ]
The very fact that you have been talking about it for this amount of time and haven't attacked the very premise her whole argument is based on shows her argument is solid --attacked it within the discipline of life science itself. Is there any established argument you can think of that refutes her claim? We can talk about scientific ideas all day, but in the end it has to have empirical validity, not just theoretical conjecture, to be attacked directly.
The very fact that you are named Tylor is proof in and of itself that I am right.
nonsense.
Oh, wait, we're not making up non-sensical arguments? You actually think you're saying something relevant here?
Yes.
If someone presents a theory based on biology or life sciences and applies it to the Law, and what I attack is her application, then maybe it might occur to a few of those dozen active braincells you have left that I'm not disagreeing with her position on life sciences but instead I am disagreeing with her application of that position to the law?
I saw that from when you both started making your arguments on it. I just want to keep you from making scientific nonsense and passing it off as legitamate. Because obviously You don't know what the hell you are talking about in that manner. Argue her application of it all you want, just don't touch arguments you have no idea how to approach correctly.
I think people enjoy arguing with you, but sometimes your arguments become so unweildly with BS, people are no longer concerned with making proper arguments but with correcting all the errant statements and propositions you make. It reminds one of pruning a tree. Sometimes after pruning all the branches with no success your best option seems to chop the tree off at the trunk. I'm sure many of us have come to the point, at one point or another, of wanting to chop off your intellect at the neck.
I know, I know. It's a major stretch for you. But if you put some real time into it and think REALLY hard, it might make sense to you.
Nah, I'm already ahead of you. You can only chop off one errant branch at a time and do a good job of it.
If it still doesn't, then I recomend you stop talking.
Not a chance.
God. Lord.
You are actually trying to preach about science and, for fucks sake, you don't even know how to spell "discipline." Do you actually expect anyone to take the rest of your non-sense seriously?
Try providing links or quotes before you appeal to authority. Saying "academia agrees with me" is not only stupid because, hay, academia is stupid, but it's also stupid because you provide no evidence to support it.
Then at the end, you basically say "well yeah, I really have no point here anyways." Which is pretty much par for you Tylor. You ramble a bunch of things that are untrue, you misuse terms, you pretend you're an intellectual and at the end you didn't even say anything anyways because you don't have the social aptitude to follow the discussion.
It's like someone walked into a discussion about 80's movies and you started telling us how awesome LOTR is and how none of us recognize the greatness of Peter Jackson. We're not talking about that.. we're talking about Molly Ringwald. Try to keep up. No one is going to talk to you if you can't follow the discussion.
-
1) Although a lot of what Tylor says is confusing, he is right that your arguments also often become convoluted, Grak. It seems like you pick at straws just to somehow, in some small and however extreme way, prove either that you are right or the other person is wrong (even if only in part of their argument). But sometimes your "facts" and "proof" and declarations don't ring completely true. And I don't claim to be smart enough to find every mistake you make, as I'm not profoundly knowledgable in all the topics you might claim to be an expert on, but I've noticed you do it a few times just in the debate we've had, so I can just bet you do it even more than I notice.
2) Just because someone is not an excellent or good speller, it doesn't mean that they are unintelligent and their points are automatically nullified. I know a lot of smart people who aren't the best spellers. So to say how can he expect anyone to take his thought process seriously because he misspelled discipline is, in my opinion, purposely misdirecting the conversation.
3) There is no need to make a personal attack on someone who only attacked your structure of argumentation.
4) Grak, no matter how smart you are- honestly I can't tell because you are so full of BS on top of it - you have a level of pretension about you that's so grand I actually think it deserves applause.
8) 8)
And honestly, no hard feelings, but stop trying to be the expert on EVERYTHING. Nobody is buying it.
-
And honestly, no hard feelings, but stop trying to be the expert on EVERYTHING. Nobody is buying it.
HAHAHA so true!
-
1) Although a lot of what Tylor says is confusing, he is right that your arguments also often become convoluted, Grak. It seems like you pick at straws just to somehow, in some small and however extreme way, prove either that you are right or the other person is wrong (even if only in part of their argument). But sometimes your "facts" and "proof" and declarations don't ring completely true. And I don't claim to be smart enough to find every mistake you make, as I'm not profoundly knowledgable in all the topics you might claim to be an expert on, but I've noticed you do it a few times just in the debate we've had, so I can just bet you do it even more than I notice.
I'm typically happy to provide references or citations on any facts i give.
2) Just because someone is not an excellent or good speller, it doesn't mean that they are unintelligent and their points are automatically nullified. I know a lot of smart people who aren't the best spellers. So to say how can he expect anyone to take his thought process seriously because he misspelled discipline is, in my opinion, purposely misdirecting the conversation.
He made an appeal to his own authority. So I attacked that authority. That's fair game.
3) There is no need to make a personal attack on someone who only attacked your structure of argumentation.
Oh, no. I dislike Tylor on a personal level. That's been ongoing for years. I made personal attacks because I dislike him.
4) Grak, no matter how smart you are- honestly I can't tell because you are so full of BS on top of it - you have a level of pretension about you that's so grand I actually think it deserves applause.
8) 8)
I accept all applause, even the sarcastic kind.
And honestly, no hard feelings, but stop trying to be the expert on EVERYTHING. Nobody is buying it.
I am not an expert on everything. Only the things I argue about >:3
-
I have alot of respect for grakthis' way of stimulating conversation like this, but once under way I don't agree with all of his methods of defending his arguments. Most everyone who really gets to know me doesn't like me so by general consensus I understand his dislike for me. It's pretty common. More than you might know. So I'm saying it is pretty justified.
This thread isn't really about me and most of my points of contention have long passed. Can we move on because I was really enjoying reading the conversation and how you guys were carrying it after my first post of this interruption. Thanks.
-
Jesus Tylor, learn to defend yourself once and awhile. There's absolutely no reason for you to justify Andrew acting like a dick.
-
holy crap & i thought the thread i was arguing in was bad..i dont think i've ever seen a nessaholic argument this bad.
where in the hell are the mods
-
holy crap & i thought the thread i was arguing in was bad..i dont think i've ever seen a nessaholic argument this bad.
where in the hell are the mods
Um, I think Grak is a mod... =/
Yeah this a pretty intense argument. But I agree with Noelle, Grak stop arguing with EVERYTHING. You always have to have to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong don't you?
Ahaha Tylor I love your sig by the way.
-
Tylor, I think you are a nice guy. I don't think most people hate you at all. I think people sometimes get frustrated at your individual posts, but I think most people are familiar enough with you to know you mean well and are friendly when it comes down to it. And honestly, there aren't enough friendly people in this world.
Although he may never want to hear it, Grak could actually learn something from you about being polite and considerate. . . Anything he says is filtered through his rudeness and arrogance before it makes its way to any of us.
And I'd keep on debating if he would stop spinning everything out of proportion to the point that it is no longer even relevant or interesting for me to retort on.
-
holy crap & i thought the thread i was arguing in was bad..i dont think i've ever seen a nessaholic argument this bad.
where in the hell are the mods
Um, I think Grak is a mod... =/
Yeah this a pretty intense argument. But I agree with Noelle, Grak stop arguing with EVERYTHING. You always have to have to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong don't you?
Ahaha Tylor I love your sig by the way.
I don't think Grak is a mod. His name is not in green and such.
And I don't think this thread should be locked or anything of the sort. Sure Grak called me stupid and Tylor stupid and socially inept - in so many words - but we all know that degrading remarks are just Grak's way of shocking us into not seeing his flawed arguments ... I mean perfectly provable, expert replies... :roll:
But it's fun, no?
-
holy crap & i thought the thread i was arguing in was bad..i dont think i've ever seen a nessaholic argument this bad.
where in the hell are the mods
Um, I think Grak is a mod... =/
Yeah this a pretty intense argument. But I agree with Noelle, Grak stop arguing with EVERYTHING. You always have to have to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong don't you?
Ahaha Tylor I love your sig by the way.
I don't think Grak is a mod. His name is not in green and such.
And I don't think this thread should be locked or anything of the sort. Sure Grak called me stupid and Tylor stupid and socially inept - in so many words - but we all know that degrading remarks are just Grak's way of shocking us into not seeing his flawed arguments ... I mean perfectly provable, expert replies... :roll:
But it's fun, no?
He's not a mod? Huh? Then what's the little unicorn thing by his name for? God I'm so confused...
-
Idk, but I notice Rosie has one too and I'm pretty sure she is not a mod.
Edit: I was bored so I checked out Andrew's website and I found a spelling error. Dear lord!!
But Andrew, Better Than Ezra is my favorite band. At least we have something in common. lol.
-
You guys don't have to defend me. I know when to defend myself. I never said people hated me I said most people in RL don't like me. You guys only know me over the internet and live 3000 miles away or on another continent. You might think Grakthis is just being a dick but he didn't come to this conclusion overnight in some stupid soupdujour statement or jen meaness. There is history here you might not be aware of. Truth is very important to me and I understand his conclusions. I like myself and who I am so that is what counts.
-
holy crap & i thought the thread i was arguing in was bad..i dont think i've ever seen a nessaholic argument this bad.
where in the hell are the mods
Um, I think Grak is a mod... =/
Yeah this a pretty intense argument. But I agree with Noelle, Grak stop arguing with EVERYTHING. You always have to have to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong don't you?
Ahaha Tylor I love your sig by the way.
I don't think Grak is a mod. His name is not in green and such.
And I don't think this thread should be locked or anything of the sort. Sure Grak called me stupid and Tylor stupid and socially inept - in so many words - but we all know that degrading remarks are just Grak's way of shocking us into not seeing his flawed arguments ... I mean perfectly provable, expert replies... :roll:
But it's fun, no?
Yeah, I don't think the thread needs to be locked. I like the conversations being made here and don't see a reason for it to be locked. There is an intelligence and maturity in threads like this you don't see in other places. People have a sense of when to hold back outtight attacks you see in other arguments on the board.
-
yeah Grak isnt a mod (i bet he wishes lol). the unicorn is for the "vc unicorn brigade" or something like that. only some fans are in it, ones that went above & beyond for other fans.
& tylor, I love your sig too <3
-
You guys don't have to defend me. I know when to defend myself. I never said people hated me I said most people in RL don't like me. You guys only know me over the internet and live 3000 miles away or on another continent. You might think Grakthis is just being a dick but he didn't come to this conclusion overnight in some stupid soupdujour statement or jen meaness. There is history here you might not be aware of. Truth is very important to me and I understand his conclusions. I like myself and who I am so that is what counts.
Erm, ok. So you will let him make personal attacks on you and just continue to say you understand him and take his BS? :?
-
holy crap & i thought the thread i was arguing in was bad..i dont think i've ever seen a nessaholic argument this bad.
where in the hell are the mods
Um, I think Grak is a mod... =/
Yeah this a pretty intense argument. But I agree with Noelle, Grak stop arguing with EVERYTHING. You always have to have to prove that you are right and everyone else is wrong don't you?
Ahaha Tylor I love your sig by the way.
Thank the heavens, no. The way I'd run this website would not be conducive to a VC fanbase.
-
Tylor, I think you are a nice guy. I don't think most people hate you at all. I think people sometimes get frustrated at your individual posts, but I think most people are familiar enough with you to know you mean well and are friendly when it comes down to it. And honestly, there aren't enough friendly people in this world.
Although he may never want to hear it, Grak could actually learn something from you about being polite and considerate. . . Anything he says is filtered through his rudeness and arrogance before it makes its way to any of us.
And I'd keep on debating if he would stop spinning everything out of proportion to the point that it is no longer even relevant or interesting for me to retort on.
I know how to be polite and considerate.
I just choose not to be when I decide it's appropriate.
You may not like the things I say, but you sure do notice them, don't you? You read them. You think about them. You violently want to tell me I'm wrong to the point where you researching and read things you otherwise wouldn't have. You challenge your own beliefs just to try and fight with me.
Let me know the next time someone who is nice to you gets this kind of reaction.
-
Erm, ok. So you will let him make personal attacks on you and just continue to say you understand him and take his BS? :?
How would you expect him to respond?
Calling me names back? That would be weird for him.
-
Tylor, I think you are a nice guy. I don't think most people hate you at all. I think people sometimes get frustrated at your individual posts, but I think most people are familiar enough with you to know you mean well and are friendly when it comes down to it. And honestly, there aren't enough friendly people in this world.
Although he may never want to hear it, Grak could actually learn something from you about being polite and considerate. . . Anything he says is filtered through his rudeness and arrogance before it makes its way to any of us.
And I'd keep on debating if he would stop spinning everything out of proportion to the point that it is no longer even relevant or interesting for me to retort on.
I know how to be polite and considerate.
I just choose not to be when I decide it's appropriate.
You may not like the things I say, but you sure do notice them, don't you? You read them. You think about them. You violently want to tell me I'm wrong to the point where you researching and read things you otherwise wouldn't have. You challenge your own beliefs just to try and fight with me.
Let me know the next time someone who is nice to you gets this kind of reaction.
I didn't change my opinion, I was just trying to explain it to you. Yeah, I think it's fun at some times to argue with somebody- but it's not the only way to hone up on your debating skills, or whatever you want to call them. You can think just as deeply and still have to prove yourself without someone calling you names and being rude. It's called a seminar and I had many of them in college. One of them was a logic course, actually. So yeah, that's why it sometimes frustrates me when you get off course.
You argue like an old, ornery philosopher. lol. Not a bad thing, but a somewhat annoying thing.
-
I'm glad you guys atleast have an intelligent debate.
The ones on Youtube are just pathetic. There was one over an issue similar to this and the person was like "All gays are unnatrual and wrong, and should be burned"
Then people told them wrong, and were like "Because they are different from you, that isnt okay?"
So then it just turned into a bunch of cussing, threats, etc etc.
Pretty pathetic how some people chose to argue, with curse words and no information to back up their position.