California prop 8:

#102
#102
gsvol said:
Those who stand for nothing will fall for anything, so to answer your question, probably those who stand for something.
Click to expand...


I did not think that it was possible, in your never ending albeit sometimes entertaining, whimsical effort to portray yourself as, well, whimsical, that you could possibly be more obtuse. But you, sir, have reached a new high (or low, depending on your point of view), in making no sense whatsoever.

Not that you care.


gsvol said:
He could have meant he could care less.

That would mean he had some care for the issue.

If he said he couldn't care less then that would mean he didn't care at all, so there is a difference.
Click to expand...


In context, he meant "could not," I am quite sure. But if it makes you happy to believe otherwise, I am 100 percent behind your ability to do so.

Which is ironic, considering your position on the topic at hand.
 
#103
#103
666 said:
Yes, there actually are. The refer to heterosexuals as "breeders." I obviously don't agree with Justice Zarella.
Click to expand...

Do you agree with those who call straights as "breeders?"

Can you accept that Zarella believes what he is saying??


KB5252 said:
I have a family member who is gay and has been in a long standing relationship for years. We talk about these issues often. I accept his lifestyle as being his choice and treat him no differently because of it. He asked me once during a discussion why I am against gay marriage. I told him that I believe he and his partner should have rights equal to marriage under the law, but that I believe a marriage is a union ordained by the church. Since it is a religious matter I don't think you can force religious people to accept the lifestyle because it goes against their beliefs.

Does that make me a bigot by not condoning his lifestyle, but accepting it as his choice and treating him with the respect every man or woman deserves?
Click to expand...

A guy who had been into the gay lifestyle for quite some time once asked me; "what would you do if you were in my shoes?"

I replied that I would find me a nice young woman, get married, settle down and raise me a family.

"But what if no woman would have me?"

I replied that he was a handsome young man, he made good money and had a nice house, stables, horses and a good station in life, plenty of women would make themselves available if he were serious about it.

He asked his deadbeat lover to move out and the gay lover did but when the deadbeat came back to pick up the last of his things, he caught the guys back turned and stabbed him and then kept on stabbing him until there was a lifeless body on the floor.

A sweetie pie exterior can sometimes hide a demon within. No book can be understood by merely considering it's cover.



666 said:
You're probably more up to date than me, but I don't recall Jesus talking about same-sex marriage.
Click to expand...

Why would he???

Homosexuality was considered to be "an abomination before God" in those days, as many people still do consider it.

666 said:
I thought an avatar was the picture I use. Are you asking about it or my name choice?

It's your own choice to whether marriage is a religious matter for you. They two don't have to go hand in hand. Why don't we eliminate marriages and just give everyone civil unions then? Is it really because you all don't want to have the same name as those icky gays?
Click to expand...

Is Solzhinitsen (sp?) your avatar??

I think the trip sixes handle is what is in question, whyfore are thou romeo, using three sixes, if you don't mind my asking.

IPorange said:
I see your line of reasoning, but I just want to point out that someone's beliefs shouldn't infringe on others'. Even though one could argue through Christianity that gays should not be treated differently than others, that argument isn't even necessary in a nation that isn't supposed to have an official Church. Without the protection of liberty, mob rule would dictate all government policy and action.
Click to expand...

I understand what you are saying but some of your thinking seems convoluted to me.

"The uncontested absurdities of today are the accepted slogans of tomorrow. They come to be accepted by degrees, by precedent, by implication, by erosion, by default, by dint of constant pressure on one side and constant retreat on the other - until the day when they are suddenly declared to be the country's official ideology."
~ Ayn Rand

Rather prophetic, wouldn't you agree??
 
#105
#105
lawgator1 said:
I did not think that it was possible, in your never ending albeit sometimes entertaining, whimsical effort to portray yourself as, well, whimsical, that you could possibly be more obtuse. But you, sir, have reached a new high (or low, depending on your point of view), in making no sense whatsoever.

Not that you care.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the character sketch, reminds me of a second graders work creating stick men.

I can only imagine what would happen if you were turned loose with crayons.:mega_shok:
 
#106
#106
gsvol said:
Thanks for the character sketch, reminds me of a second graders work creating stick men.

I can only imagine what would happen if you were turned loose with crayons.:mega_shok:
Click to expand...


You can't handle the truth.

I know I heard that somewhere. Prophesy?
 
#109
#109
I disgree with his viewpoint, but I'm not going to say he can't get married because of it. ;)
 
#111
#111
666 said:
Civil unions currently do not have the same right as marriages due to the DOMA. Even if they had the same rights, you're still the one arguing over semantics because you feel you have more of a right to a word than a homosexual.


The main point is that there isn't a single logical explination given why same-sex couples can't be married.
Click to expand...

The concept of marriage is a social creation - while it has legal connotations it also signifies a certain event. It has a symbolic as well as legal connotation.

If civil unions provided the same legal rights as marriage I can see that it is the choice of the people to determine the symbolic connotation of the word marriage since the people are the ones who infused the word with such a connotation.

If opponents are arguing against the connotation being changed then this is not an "equal rights" situation nor a separate but equal situation. It is a societal/cultural choice and should be in the hands of society (not the courts).
 
#113
#113
volinbham said:
The concept of marriage is a social creation - while it has legal connotations it also signifies a certain event. It has a symbolic as well as legal connotation.

If civil unions provided the same legal rights as marriage I can see that it is the choice of the people to determine the symbolic connotation of the word marriage since the people are the ones who infused the word with such a connotation.

If opponents are arguing against the connotation being changed then this is not an "equal rights" situation nor a separate but equal situation. It is a societal/cultural choice and should be in the hands of society (not the courts).
Click to expand...

Exactly, leave the goverment out of it!
 
#114
#114
volinbham said:
The concept of marriage is a social creation - while it has legal connotations it also signifies a certain event. It has a symbolic as well as legal connotation.

If civil unions provided the same legal rights as marriage I can see that it is the choice of the people to determine the symbolic connotation of the word marriage since the people are the ones who infused the word with such a connotation.

If opponents are arguing against the connotation being changed then this is not an "equal rights" situation nor a separate but equal situation. It is a societal/cultural choice and should be in the hands of society (not the courts).
Click to expand...

I read this several times and couldn't find anything wrong with it. It's frustrating. :p

I think it's a good point.
 
#117
#117
Rdj..... this is your new avatar.

scientific-method-7.jpg
 
#121
#121
If there are 1,000,000,000 sins, should that mean I condone any of them because there are many others? You ask why people are against it, so I answered why I am.
 
#122
#122
alaVOL said:
If there are 1,000,000,000 sins, should that mean I condone any of them because there are many others? You ask why people are against it, so I answered why I am.
Click to expand...

Actually he asked why it should be banned, not why people are against it.
 
#123
#123
666 said:
You said you're for civil unions. They currently do not offer the same rights as marriages in the United States. So why not same-sex marriage? You're reasoning's against same-sex marriage are irrational and intolerant. While it may be too strong, and I apologize for that, to lump you in with the card carrying gay haters of America, but the reasoning's against gay marriage are bigoted.
Click to expand...
Is intolerance a bad thing? Why must we push for universal tolerance? If he is religiously opposed to homosexuality then so be it. Personally, I feel that homosexuality is perverse and those who practice such a lifestyle are psychologically deranged.

I could care less about extending marriage rights to homosexuals, because it will not affect my life, nor my family's life. However, I would not want my children to be taught in school that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted or embraced. I would also not want the government to try to force a child being put up for adoption or placed in a foster home to end up in a homosexual household.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#124
#124
therealUT said:
Is intolerance a bad thing? Why must we push for universal tolerance? If he is religiously opposed to homosexuality then so be it. Personally, I feel that homosexuality is perverse and those who practice such a lifestyle are psychologically deranged.

I could care less about extending marriage rights to homosexuals, because it will not affect my life, nor my family's life. However, I would not want my children to be taught in school that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted or embraced. I would also not want the government to try to force a child being put up for adoption or placed in a foster home to end up in a homosexual household.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Good stuff.
 
#125
#125
therealUT said:
Is intolerance a bad thing? Why must we push for universal tolerance? If he is religiously opposed to homosexuality then so be it. Personally, I feel that homosexuality is perverse and those who practice such a lifestyle are psychologically deranged.

I could care less about extending marriage rights to homosexuals, because it will not affect my life, nor my family's life. However, I would not want my children to be taught in school that homosexuality is normal and should be accepted or embraced. I would also not want the government to try to force a child being put up for adoption or placed in a foster home to end up in a homosexual household.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...
Wow.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top