View Poll Results: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

Voters
430. You may not vote on this poll
  • No

    186 43.26%
  • Yes, explain

    244 56.74%
Page 71 of 192 FirstFirst ... 2161697071727381121171 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 710 of 1915

Thread: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

  1. #701
    Professor
    Groucho's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Pocono Mountains, PA
    Last Seen
    05-24-11 @ 03:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,363

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by digsbe View Post
    I'm not a bigot. I have gay friends and ex gay friends and I treat them with no disrespect or any differently then my other friends. You judge my character based off of my beliefs. You are not only wrong, but you are asserting your own bigotry by assuming that I myself am bigoted against homosexuals simply because I view homosexuality as a sin.
    Heh!

    "I'm not a bigot. I just think they're all sinners and don't deserve the rights the rest of us have. Just because my views fit all of the classic definitions of bigotry doesn't mean I'm a bigot!"

    Like I said, bigots never think they are prejudiced in any way; their treatment of someone else as second class citizens always makes perfect sense to them.

    Thanks for proving my point!

  2. #702
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Thank you for proving my point.

    You did understand my point, yes?
    I guess i didnt
    nor do i see how i proved your point.

    Based on the OPs criteria every reason to stop it was debunked

    but also like the OP stated there were lots of reasons to

    THINK its wrong, gross or offensive etc
    TEACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
    PREACH its wrong gross or offensive etc
    BELIEVE its wrong gross or offensive etc
    FEEL its wrong gross or offensive etc
    etc
    but none to stop it in america
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  3. #703
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,752

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    I guess i didnt
    nor do i see how i proved your point.

    Based on the OPs criteria every reason to stop it was debunked

    but also like the OP stated there were lots of reasons to



    but none to stop it in america
    My point was that, for the people making the points you discard, those points were good ones.

    And that the debaters realized that they were at a standstill, unable to convince each other to agree.

    Each debater believed that their points were good, much as you obviously believe their points were not and the OP's points were.

    Such a statement on your part proved my point.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  4. #704
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    My point was that, for the people making the points you discard, those points were good ones.
    not based on the criteria, they were good to believe, teach, preach, think, feel but not to stop based on criteria

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    And that the debaters realized that they were at a standstill, unable to convince each other to agree..

    Each debater believed that their points were good, much as you obviously believe their points were not and the OP's points were.

    Such a statement on your part proved my point.
    See i just dont think so at all
    Every reason was easily discredited because it fit one or more of the criteria to make it not good, since they fit the criteria in one way or another I dont see how any were good.

    The people that still stick with their reasons are just ok with them being unsound, unreasonable, illogical, bias, selfish, arrogant, pompous, hypercritical, anti-american and/or discriminative. They just dont care they are going to have them anyway.
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  5. #705
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Last Seen
    06-29-10 @ 11:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,801

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Yes it is discrimination
    against gays, you're right. ,

    it's the state saying secular morals are superior to that of religious Christians.
    Banning gay marriage is discrimination. It's the state saying that Christian fundamentalist "morals" (if you call them that) are superior to that of seculars and real Christians.

    Yawn, next? "Making something legal for others that doesn't affect me is discrimination against me just because I don't like it." Is that really your argument. If so, then you won't be much of a challenge. And you need to lose your Libertarian card while you're at it.


    Personally if a state voted by popular majority to accept gay marriage then I would be fine with it. I wouldn't support it personally and I would vote against it, but I would obey the law.
    What do you mean "obey the law"? You mean you'd get a gay marriage?

    Who is necessarily imposing on others?
    You.

    In California they voted on gay marriage (proposition 8) and gay marriage was turned down by a popular vote.
    Which was a mistake. Since it doesn't affect anyone, there was no reason for a popular vote to begin with. That's called "tyranny of the majority".

    Now they are trying to find some way to impose gay marriage upon everyone even though it was voted down.
    It won't be imposed on anyone who doesn't willingly choose to get a marriage licence with a person of the same sex. On the other hand, you said you have no problem imposing your fundamentalist "morals" on the American people. Ah the hypocrisy of the quasi-religious. I'm more religious than you are.
    Last edited by Toothpicvic; 05-29-10 at 08:34 PM.

  6. #706
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,752

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    not based on the criteria, they were good to believe, teach, preach, think, feel but not to stop based on criteria



    See i just dont think so at all
    Every reason was easily discredited because it fit one or more of the criteria to make it not good, since they fit the criteria in one way or another I dont see how any were good.

    The people that still stick with their reasons are just ok with them being unsound, unreasonable, illogical, bias, selfish, arrogant, pompous, hypercritical, anti-american and/or discriminative. They just dont care they are going to have them anyway.
    The disconnect in our communication can be easily explained.

    Quite simply, I was not going by those criteria.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  7. #707
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    The disconnect in our communication can be easily explained.

    Quite simply, I was not going by those criteria.
    well to participate in the thread it is pretty meaningless to disregard them, it also makes any argument, especially your current one invalid dont you think?

    I think they are all good criteria based on the topic at hand, now some of them are VERY subjective but the bias, hypocritical and discrimination ones are pretty good. Also the others are relevant but not necessarily critical when talking about the topic at hand which is two consenting adults marrying.

    Those criteria of course wouldnt apply to other things as well I agree
    but at the end of the day it discrimination and i havent seen one reason that didnt fit that description
    Last edited by O_Guru; 05-29-10 at 08:47 PM.
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  8. #708
    User
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Last Seen
    05-31-10 @ 03:33 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    36

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    well to participate in the thread it is pretty meaningless to disregard them, it also makes any argument, especially your current one invalid dont you think?

    I think they are all good criteria based on the topic at hand, now some of them are VERY subjective but the bias, hypocritical and discrimination ones are pretty good. Also the others are relevant but not necessarily critical when talking about the topic at hand which is two consenting adults marrying.

    Those criteria of course wouldnt apply to other things as well I agree
    but at the end of the day it discrimination and i havent seen one reason that didnt fit that description
    And that's exactly the problem. "Logical" and "discriminatory," as you use the term, are concepts so alien to each other as to be incompatible. One is, ideally, entirely fact based. The other is entirely emotional. It's simply not possible to defend emotion with logic, or logic with emotion. By insisting on both at the same time, the whole debate is rigged from the start. On a more fundamental level, emotion isn't even a subject which can be debated. Can anyone think of a time when they were talked out of an emotion?

    Because the working definition of the pro-homosexual marriage side basically labels any opinion but it's own as discriminatory, there simply aren't grounds for a debate. Those of us on either side, who are interested in the logical part of the discussion, have chosen to ignore that definition, and substitute the more useful question of whether different treatment is justified. Still subjective, but not fundamentally rigged.

    Back to the point at hand. You appear to believe that any difference in treatment constitutes discrimination, and is therefore immoral, hypocritical, or whichever negative term you'd prefer. I would tend to agree with that, in cases where the difference is merely semantic. In this case, as, frankly, in most cases, it's not. There's a specific, biological difference, which can never be overcome. Homosexual couplings simply can not produce offspring.

    I'm sure someone will now argue that homosexuals can adopt, be artificially inseminated, clone... The list goes on. But none of those consists of a husband impregnating his husband, or a wife impregnating her wife. All require parties outside the union, and most require medical intervention. These intermediaries greatly alter the meanings of parenthood, and the bonds between parent and child. Whether those things are positive or negative is a subject for a different debate. But they are undeniable. And that makes homosexual relationships substantially different from heterosexual ones.

    To treat two identical things differently, is discrimination. To treat two different things differently, is to acknowledge reality. Is it discriminatory to not put urinals in women's bathrooms? How about leaving the tampon dispensers out of men's rooms? Both are completely appropriate where they are, because men and women are different. As are homosexual relationships, and heterosexual relationships.

    All of this is why the government should never have stuck their noses into the whole concept of marriage. People can already associate with whomever they choose. But because the government deemed potentially child bearing relationships to be meaningful to it, they've decided to usurp the whole process. But government was never intended to regulate interpersonal relationships, and has no legitimate authority to do so. If it's left to individual churches, the moral argument disappears. And if people could simply say, "this is my husband/wife," without anyone else involved, ALL of the arguments disappear. If the government treated us all as individuals, instead of groups, (pairs, in this case) it wouldn't make any difference whether or not they considered us married. Specific churches would recognize our status, or not. The only one that would matter is the one to which we belong, if any.

    Governments have done a truly horrific job in their usurpation of marriage. A majority of children in most western countries are now born to unmarried parents. 2 or 3 divorces are now considered normal for a person. And each of those divorces puts the entire lives of both parties under the unchallengeable authority of the government. If we are ever to be free, we need to (among many other things) take marriage back from the government. When that happens, we can all call ourselves whatever we want, and our peers can decide how to treat us.

  9. #709
    Educator O_Guru's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Last Seen
    01-06-13 @ 06:24 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    758

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    And that's exactly the problem. "Logical" and "discriminatory," as you use the term, are concepts so alien to each other as to be incompatible. One is, ideally, entirely fact based. The other is entirely emotional. It's simply not possible to defend emotion with logic, or logic with emotion. By insisting on both at the same time, the whole debate is rigged from the start. On a more fundamental level, emotion isn't even a subject which can be debated. Can anyone think of a time when they were talked out of an emotion?
    nice overall reply now lets see "if" holes can be shot in it and it applies to the original OP.
    I agree with one thing for sure, emotion does get in the way of logic, luckily for me, my stand doesnt involve any emotion just common sense.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    Because the working definition of the pro-homosexual marriage side basically labels any opinion but it's own as discriminatory, there simply aren't grounds for a debate. Those of us on either side, who are interested in the logical part of the discussion, have chosen to ignore that definition, and substitute the more useful question of whether different treatment is justified. Still subjective, but not fundamentally rigged.
    Well fact is, it is discrimination has there hasnt been any sound reasoning to prove otherwise. Yes people debate over semantics and other things and thats fine but at the end of the day discrimination cant be thrown aways as it fits. Most, not all but most of the reasons I found dumb as they were or relate to the same reasons people had for not allowing women to vote, minorities equal right, interracial marriage etc. Its discrimination because it denies justifiable equality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    Back to the point at hand. You appear to believe that any difference in treatment constitutes discrimination, and is therefore immoral, hypocritical, or whichever negative term you'd prefer. I would tend to agree with that, in cases where the difference is merely semantic. In this case, as, frankly, in most cases, it's not. There's a specific, biological difference, which can never be overcome. Homosexual couplings simply can not produce offspring.
    its not so black and white and shallow, no just any difference isnt discrimination but this is because its denies equal and justifiable rights and frankly it actually IS. Also i never used the word immoral, i dont like using the word much because its very subjective, of course i do use it every now and then but many people get their morals from their religion which in certain ways is meaningless to America. Lastly the biological difference is MEANINGLESS as is "producing offspring" example men are biolocally different from women yet they are equal under the law and people get married everyday that cen not have kids or dont want to with no issue LOL

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    I'm sure someone will now argue that homosexuals can adopt, be artificially inseminated, clone... The list goes on. But none of those consists of a husband impregnating his husband, or a wife impregnating her wife. All require parties outside the union, and most require medical intervention. These intermediaries greatly alter the meanings of parenthood, and the bonds between parent and child. Whether those things are positive or negative is a subject for a different debate. But they are undeniable. And that makes homosexual relationships substantially different from heterosexual ones.
    while its true they can adopt, inseminate etc I wont argue it because it doesnt mean anything because you are discussing parenthood by your own terms which has nothing to do with marriage. Its a nice straw to hold on to but a meaningless one in the debate since people have kids without marriage the two and not tied together unless the people involve want them to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    To treat two identical things differently, is discrimination. To treat two different things differently, is to acknowledge reality. Is it discriminatory to not put urinals in women's bathrooms? How about leaving the tampon dispensers out of men's rooms? Both are completely appropriate where they are, because men and women are different. As are homosexual relationships, and heterosexual relationships.
    Different based on what your made up opinions and your emotions? LOL homosexual relationships, and heterosexual relationships are NOT different, They are loving relationships between two human consenting adults, not different unless you involve semantics and emotion LMAO

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    All of this is why the government should never have stuck their noses into the whole concept of marriage. People can already associate with whomever they choose. But because the government deemed potentially child bearing relationships to be meaningful to it, they've decided to usurp the whole process. But government was never intended to regulate interpersonal relationships, and has no legitimate authority to do so. If it's left to individual churches, the moral argument disappears. And if people could simply say, "this is my husband/wife," without anyone else involved, ALL of the arguments disappear. If the government treated us all as individuals, instead of groups, (pairs, in this case) it wouldn't make any difference whether or not they considered us married. Specific churches would recognize our status, or not. The only one that would matter is the one to which we belong, if any. .
    the "moral" argument doesn't disappear its CREATED by the church LMAO
    Also government needed involved because spouses should be protected and need protected and granted certain rights, so there goes that. If government wasn't involved that would be worse IMO Widows and offspring left behind would/could get screwed. Government NEEDS involved you could argue how much in a different debate but they are needed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Evenglischatiest View Post
    Governments have done a truly horrific job in their usurpation of marriage. A majority of children in most western countries are now born to unmarried parents. 2 or 3 divorces are now considered normal for a person. And each of those divorces puts the entire lives of both parties under the unchallengeable authority of the government. If we are ever to be free, we need to (among many other things) take marriage back from the government. When that happens, we can all call ourselves whatever we want, and our peers can decide how to treat us.
    only based on the abandon idea that its about kids LOL. Read slow, KIDS are not about MARRIAGE, only in theory not in reality sice you dont have to have kids to get married and people get married that cant have kids

    Now I do agree government isnt good at making sure the kids get looked after but Im all for it. Also more proof that you example is DIFFERENT from marriage i could get some one pregnant right now and government steps in whether we are married or not LMAO

    Now "alimony" is up for debate but again thats a different debate not this one

    Well while I liked your post unfortunately for you it still falls directly in line with the op
    PURE STUPIDITY 1.) Glenn Beck doesnt lie. 2.) Obama is Jesus like 3.) Sara Palin is so smart & shes a great speaker. 4.) Obama does just about everything perfect. 5.) Fox doesn' t lean right 6.) Pro-Choice is no different than Pro-Slavery 7.) MSNBC doesn't lean left. 8.) What TSA does is no different than sexual assault & child porn.

  10. #710
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:16 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,752

    Re: Gay Marriage, is it right to stop it?

    Quote Originally Posted by O_Guru View Post
    well to participate in the thread it is pretty meaningless to disregard them, it also makes any argument, especially your current one invalid donít you think?

    I think they are all good criteria based on the topic at hand, now some of them are VERY subjective but the bias, hypocritical and discrimination ones are pretty good. Also the others are relevant but not necessarily critical when talking about the topic at hand which is two consenting adults marrying.

    Those criteria of course wouldnít apply to other things as well I agree
    but at the end of the day it discrimination and I havenít seen one reason that didnít fit that description
    The discussion had changed from the original one to a discussion about why the original discussion ended.

    My explanation of why I thought that was the case did not, in my mind, fall under the parameters of the OP (which, indeed, I had completely forgotten).

    Thus any guidelines set down by the OP were not factored in.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •