- Joined
- Jan 28, 2006
- Messages
- 51,123
- Reaction score
- 15,259
- Location
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
The right solution is:
....for gays to stop pursuing marriage or civil unions in any way.
The right solution is:
Still could promote widely popular legislation so he doesn't tea-bagged whenever he goes home.
....for gays to stop pursuing marriage or civil unions in any way.
It was never meant to improve marriage.
It was meant to expand the state recognition of marriage to another social group.
Equality is the main factor.
Homosexual couples are looking for the same legal and social rights as heterosexual couples. To have their union be state recognized.
Sucks to be in the minority, doesn't it?
....for gays to stop pursuing marriage or civil unions in any way.
Oh stop pouting Jerry. You should be delighted, the sooner gay marriage is widespread the sooner Jesus is going to descent from the sky with a sword protruding from his mouth to throw all non-believers in a lake of fire for eternity. :mrgreen:
It sure does. I wish more people could make clear posts like I can.
I further wish the Mod team would live up this "higher standard" they're supposed to, because then you might bother placing some substance or at least minimal effort into your average post, but then again, expecting people to follow their own rules is a minority view on this board, and I AM in the minority, as you pointed out.
Thank you for the feed back; it's good to know that I can still inspire people to show their true selves :2wave:
Personally, who gives a rip? It's ****ing New York, it's a sorry state anyway. Quite frankly, the conservatives here in american have already one.
What victories has RightatNYC and his crowd have had? 3 states going on 4?(AND NONE of which have put it on referendum, pathetic cowards).
And yet, we are the minority opinion, LOLZ yea, right.
Jerry's stance that gays should not have marriage rights or civil unions is the minority position.
Approximately 1/3 of people support full marriage, 1/3 support full civil unions, and 1/3 oppose both.
Civil Rights
And yet you still found a way to act like an ass with an off-the-cuff snipe instead of simply presenting data in an objective and civil manner.
Good job Mr. Higher Standard. I'd love to just put you on ignore but since you're immune it's up to you to fix your behavior.
And yet you still found a way to act like an ass with an off-the-cuff snipe instead of simply presenting data in an objective and civil manner.
Forgive me for not "presenting the data in an objective matter" like you have throughout this thread.
You mean like your "Gays don't deserve any rights because they are homos" attitude that you have presented?
That's one way to grossly misrepresent my position, sure.
You are at least consistent in your sophistry.
You stated that the "right thing" is for gays to stop pushing for marriage as well as civil unions. What is your justification for that?
You mean like your "Gays don't deserve any rights because they are homos" attitude that you have presented?
First, context: That was a response to...
Jerry said:....for gays to stop pursuing marriage or civil unions in any way.TheNextEra said:The right solution is:
It is only in marriage where I take any issue, and even then I do not actively oppose gay-marriage. I have never and do not intend to vote against it and I hold that neutral position for purely religious reasons.
On a cultural, sociological level, I object to gay-marriage.
Marriage is a behavior, and state sanctioning of any form of marriage is encouragement of that behavior.
Since my opinion is that homosexuality is the result of a biological error where the brain interprets the pheromones of the same gender as an opposite gender, it is my opinion that the practice of homosexuality and gay-marriage by extension is self destructive. I can not support state encouragement of self destructive behavior.
However, since there are children who can benefit from gay parents, neither can I oppose gay marriage.
I am unresolved on the issue.
My arguments on gay-marriage are my attempts to explore the issue further and hopefully arrive at a firm position.
At this time, the only resolution I see is for gays to simply stop perusing state support for their behavior, just as I think “right-to-die” avocets should simply stop perusing state support of suicide.
What are you basing this opinion on? Considering that it's directly contradicted by pretty much all the scientific literature, I don't really give it much weight.
So because you can't figure out how you should come out, you don't think that states should be free to decide to grant civil unions or marriage rights to gay couples?
My opinion is based on my interpretation of that literature.
The evidence shows a difference. I am calling that difference an error because the resulting behavior is incongruent with the function of that individual’s reproductive system (that's the nice way of saying "gay men are instinctively trying to impregnate each other in the ass", but I'm making some effort not to be to crude here).
The APA base’s it’s diagnostic criteria of a “disorder” on an individual’s ability to function day-to-day, whereas I base my argument on biological congruency. This is why I call it an “error” and not a “disorder”. The reproductive system is unique in that it is the one system any individual could live without, so it make sense that there would be some lesser form of Transexuality where an individual could function with the error.
Pro-GM doesn't think it should be a state issue either, so perhaps that's one aria where pro-gm and I actually agree.
You're entitled to think whatever you want, but I'm just saying that I give it no weight and don't think that there's anything to support it beyond your own feelings and beliefs.
"Pro-GM" is not a monolithic entity. If you'd read any of my posts in this thread, you'd see that I think it is most certainly a state issue (if not solely a private one) and that it should be governed by the various state legislatures.
So true, but my feelings and beliefs dictate my vote, which does carry some consequence, so you might not want to dismiss the feelings and beliefs of others so quickly.
Mainstream GM are taking the issue to SCOTUS
just as mainstream PL are taking the issue to SCOTUS.