If you oppose same-sex marriage, you are...

[Black Dog]

That's not an example of fear. Its not always that people use. If I said that its "fear" every time, then I apologize. Its fear only sometimes, otherwise its religious ignorance or something else.

So now it's religious ignorance or something else? the majority of religious people in this country are far from ignorant. So because people choose to follow the laws of the God they worship, it must be ignorance? Or something else.

 

[Cilogy]

A little off topic, but...

Today I learned that people tend to get really all bent out of shape on the issue of gay marriage. I don't mean those against it, I mean people on both sides. Can some one explain it to me? I guess I just don't see the big deal kinda thing. I understand it's important to people, but so are alot of things that don't generate the kind of emotional reaction that this issue does.

What is odd is that the general attitude among gay people I know on the topic is that gay marriage would be nice, and it's going to happen soon, but it's not a really huge deal. It certainly does not seem to inflame the emotions like this thread and a couple others on this topic.

I do what I do here because its a place where I can let out all my opinions and try to prove people wrong. I like to argue, honestly, I think its fun and I like to try to prove a point.

 

[obvious Child]

If you had actually read what I said in context, you would know you are completely off track.

I was talking about the government. :roll:

Except Not. You claimed for various reasons that the the presence of gay in marriage by government intervention cheapens the concept and value of marriage.

Therefore it is logical to deduce you value marriage on the basis of the actions of others rather than value marriage on the basis of your own.

Furthermore, post #54 where you argued that the inclusion of gays devalues the sanctity of marriage's 'sacredness.'

And Lachean said this:
"Is your marriage not inherently sacred to you? How does the actions of the state or other people make it any less sacred?"

And you replied

"Yes, they cheapen it by merely being involved for reasons I explained above."

It's kind of like saying that my family heirlooms are worthless because the weird guy down the street has something similar. Say what? Value by society rather than value intrinsically.

 

[Cilogy]

So now it's religious ignorance or something else? the majority of religious people in this country are far from ignorant. So because people choose to follow the laws of the God they worship, it must be ignorance? Or something else.

No. What the hell is wrong with you? This has to do with gay marriage. Pay attention please.

Stop trying to amplify my arguments to "all of religion." I am and always have been talking specifically about gay-marriage on this thread.

READ CAREFULLY: My main point is that people who use religion to argue against gay-marriage are ignorant. I'm not saying that religious people in general are ignorant.

Now see, in your case, if this continues, that's just general ignorance; which has nothing to do with religion or anything, just the fact that you are being ignorant.

But we'll see, let's wait for your reply.

 

[Black Dog]

Except that you were not. You claimed for various reasons that the the presence of gay in marriage cheapens the concept and value of marriage.

Therefore it is logical to deduce you value marriage on the basis of the actions of others rather than value marriage on the basis of your own.

It's kind of like saying that my family heirlooms are worthless because the weird guy down the street has something similar. Say what? Value by society rather than value intrinsically.

I said ...

"I disagree. I think it would undermine the already weak foundations of marriage.

PS I need to clarify...

I don't mean gay marriage would weaken it. I mean more government involvement." - Blackdog

I guess you should read the whole thing in context before making assumptions.

 

[Black Dog]

No. What the hell is wrong with you? This has to do with gay marriage. Pay attention please.

Stop trying to amplify my arguments to "all of religion." I am and always have been talking specifically about gay-marriage on this thread.

What the hell is wrong with you? I am talking in reference to gay marriage. When did that change????

READ CAREFULLY: My main point is that people who use religion to argue against gay-marriage are ignorant. I'm not saying that religious people in general are ignorant.

I am not saying you did. I am talking about in reference to gay marriage.

Now see, in your case, if this continues, that's just general ignorance; which has nothing to do with religion or anything, just the fact that you are being ignorant.

But we'll see, let's wait for your reply.

:roll:

 

[obvious Child]

I said ...

"I disagree. I think it would undermine the already weak foundations of marriage.

PS I need to clarify...

I don't mean gay marriage would weaken it. I mean more government involvement." - Blackdog

I guess you should read the whole thing in context before making assumptions.

Perhaps you should remember what you wrote.

Post #54, winston53660 was specifically talking about gays and their contributions as well as their lack of rights.

You replied with support for their rights, but stated "is it to much to ask to keep the sanctity of my marriage sacred?"

Why would you say that in the context of gays if you did not think that gays' inclusion in marriage does not threaten the sacred sanctity of your marriage?

Let's keep going:

Lachean "How does the actions of the state or other people make it any less sacred?"

And you replied:

"Yes, they cheapen it by merely being involved for reasons I explained above"

Other people, in this case, GAYS, are by your own word, cheapening the sacredness of marriage.

Perhaps you should remember what you wrote.

These are your words. Not mine.

 

[Black Dog]

Perhaps you should remember what you wrote.

Post #54, winston53660 was specifically talking about gays and their contributions as well as their lack of rights.

You replied with support for their rights, but stated "is it to much to ask to keep the sanctity of my marriage sacred?"

Why would you say that in the context of gays if you did not think that gays' inclusion in marriage does not threaten the sacred sanctity of your marriage?

Let's keep going:

Lachean "How does the actions of the state or other people make it any less sacred?"

And you replied:

"Yes, they cheapen it by merely being involved for reasons I explained above"

Other people, in this case, GAYS, are by your own word, cheapening the sacredness of marriage.

Perhaps you should remember what you wrote.

These are your words. Not mine.

You are cherry picking quotes to make it look like I said or meant something I did not.

Sorry you assumed wrong.

 

[Cilogy]

What the hell is wrong with you? I am talking in reference to gay marriage. When did that change????

I am not saying you did. I am talking about in reference to gay marriage.

:roll:

You said this:

So because people choose to follow the laws of the God they worship, it must be ignorance? Or something else.

 

[Black Dog]

You said this:

In reference to gay marriage. I mean that is what we are talking about.

 

[Dav]

To call yourself "open-minded" and then turn around and refuse to admit that good people can be misguided, that in fact you are above these people for being of the opposite point of view, it is not only hypocritical, it is morally outrageous.

Many people in my family are against gay marriage and they are not homophobic, bigoted, unreasonable, or anything of the sort. In fact, their arguments happen to be very calm and well-reasoned, I just also happen to disagree with them.

 

[Cilogy]

In reference to gay marriage. I mean that is what we are talking about.

Ok anyway. Yes, people who use "religion and religious laws" as justification for their arguments are ignorant of the fact that others have different religions or no religion, or ignorant of the fact that people should be able to marry whoever they want regardless of the opinion of other religions.

Leading into this is the fact that politicians who make LAWS against gay-marriage use this same twisted mentality of using religious evidence. Essentially, thousands of people are being denied a basic right because of teh religious opinions of politicians.

 

[obvious Child]

You are cherry picking quotes to make it look like I said or meant something I did not.

Sorry you assumed wrong.

How am I cherry picking when I have a direct quote from Lachean with the very next reply being yours?

He straight up asked you how the gov't and other people make it [marriage] any less sacred. And then you replied that "they cheapen it by merely being involved for reasons I explained above."

How is that cherry picking? Do I need to define that phrase for you?

Maybe your OWN posts are contradictory.

 

[Black Dog]

How am I cherry picking when I have a direct quote from Lachean with the very next reply being yours?

He straight up asked you how the gov't and other people make it [marriage] any less sacred. And then you replied that "they cheapen it by merely being involved for reasons I explained above."

How is that cherry picking? Do I need to define that phrase for you?

Maybe your OWN posts are contradictory.

Not at all. You again assumed wrong. He knew what I was talking about, and so did everyone else involved but you.

I was referring to government involvement and not the "others." Everyone else seemed to pick up on this but you.

 

[obvious Child]

Not at all. You again assumed wrong. He knew what I was talking about, and so did everyone else involved but you.

O'rly? Why did you respond yes when he included other people?

I was referring to government involvement and not the "others." Everyone else seemed to pick up on this but you.

Then why did you not say that then? Why did you reply to both government and other people as the same thing? Furthermore, why did you reply to Winston's posts about gays in that they threaten the sanctity of your marriage?

Furthermore, Lachean thanked me for pointing out that you did in fact value marriage by what society says rather than by what your marriage means to you.

Your own words betray you. It would be better for you to just admit that you misspoke rather than to try to defend this losing battle. I have your own words to prove that you did, at least at the point value marriage on what society says.

 

[Redress]

I do what I do here because its a place where I can let out all my opinions and try to prove people wrong. I like to argue, honestly, I think its fun and I like to try to prove a point.

I understand that. What I am questioning is why this one issue generates so much more emotion than most others.

 

[Black Dog]

Ok anyway. Yes, people who use "religion and religious laws" as justification for their arguments are ignorant of the fact that others have different religions or no religion, or ignorant of the fact that people should be able to marry whoever they want regardless of the opinion of other religions.

See that's just it. It has nothing to do with ignorance and that is not a good assumption. Don't you think for instance I know other religions etc have different rules? Do you really think people are that willfully stupid? Don't get me wrong I know some exist (the Phelps Family) but they are by and far a fringe minority.

The opinion Christians hold is as valid as any other, and do not deserve to be called ignorant because they choose to follow what they feel is right. No matter how much you disagree. It is not based on ignorance. It is based on wanting to do what they feel (not you) is right.

Leading into this is the fact that politicians who make LAWS against gay-marriage use this same twisted mentality of using religious evidence. Essentially, thousands of people are being denied a basic right because of teh religious opinions of politicians.

Unfortunately the Jeffersonian in me does agree on this point.

 

[Cilogy]

I understand that. What I am questioning is why this one issue generates so much more emotion than most others.

That's a good point. You never see so much discussion on many other topics.

I think it is because we are slowly reaching a tipping point in the gay-rights movement. Maybe homosexuality in the 2000s is like race in the 50s and 60s; it'll just get so intense that something has to give and the movement breaks through.

 

[Black Dog]

O'rly? Why did you respond yes when he included other people?

I don't know, could be I was responding to multiple people.

Then why did you not say that then?

Because he knew what I was talking about. :doh

Why did you reply to both government and other people as the same thing? Furthermore, why did you reply to Winston's posts about gays in that they threaten the sanctity of your marriage?

I was responding to more than one post and again outside of you, everyone knew what I was talking about.

Furthermore, Lachean thanked me for pointing out that you did in fact value marriage by what society says rather than by what your marriage means to you.

In all honesty he would have thanked you if you said Gay marriage is the shiznit at that point. :lol:

Your own words betray you. It would be better for you to just admit that you misspoke rather than to try to defend this losing battle. I have your own words to prove that you did, at least at the point value marriage on what society says.

You are the only one who did not understand what I meant. Think about that for a second. :2wave:

PS here is my first quote above that coment...

"Could not agree more. This is why I want the state to get the heck out of the marriage business altogether." - Blackdog

Sorry man, you are way off.

 

[Redress]

That's a good point. You never see so much discussion on many other topics.

I think it is because we are slowly reaching a tipping point in the gay-rights movement. Maybe homosexuality in the 2000s is like race in the 50s and 60s; it'll just get so intense that something has to give and the movement breaks through.

The movement is going to break through irregardless. Polling shows that younger people support gay marriage overwhelmingly. It's just a matter of time.

 

[akyron]

The movement is going to break through irregardless. Polling shows that younger people support gay marriage overwhelmingly. It's just a matter of time.

Scientists Make Fruit Flies Gay, Then Straight Again



"new study finds that both drugs and genetic manipulation can turn the homosexual behavior of fruit flies on and off within a matter of hours."



Maybe the kids just need a gluton free diet.

 

[FallingPianos]

To call yourself "open-minded" and then turn around and refuse to admit that good people can be misguided, that in fact you are above these people for being of the opposite point of view, it is not only hypocritical, it is morally outrageous.

Many people in my family are against gay marriage and they are not homophobic, bigoted, unreasonable, or anything of the sort. In fact, their arguments happen to be very calm and well-reasoned, I just also happen to disagree with them.

Being bigoted and homophobic doesn't necessarily mean that they go around proclaiming their disdain for gays, or that they can't discuss the issue calmly. A homophobic person can even have gay friends.

But at the end of the day, those people in your family think its ok to deny equal rights to GLBT people. There is no escaping the bigotry or homophobia of that stance, no matter how calmly or even "lovingly" its proclaimed.

That doesn't mean that supporters of same-sex marriage are somehow better than others. Its not about who's better. Everyone has their flaws.

 

[obvious Child]

I don't know, could be I was responding to multiple people.

Man, you don't even remember what you said.

Because he knew what I was talking about. :doh

Except that he didn't. Especially since he threw in "other people."

I was responding to more than one post and again outside of you, everyone knew what I was talking about.

Except when people asked you how gays in marriage affect the sanctity of marriage and you replying that they cheapen it.

Huh......

You are the only one who did not understand what I meant. Think about that for a second. :2wave:

Am I the only one who speaks English here?

People asking you how gays affect marriage's sanctity and you replying that they cheapen is means you're not talking about gays and the sanctity of marriage?

Come again?

Sorry man, you are way off.

Only if you ignore everything else you said.

 

[Black Dog]

Only if you ignore everything else you said.

#1 This is getting way off topic.

#2 You are trying to play semantics. I said it, and I know what I meant and said, unless you have somehow become a mind reader?

Finaly I notice how you completly ignore my comments and cherry pick what you would like it to mean.

""Could not agree more. This is why I want the state to get the heck out of the marriage business altogether." - Blackdog

Pretty much sums up what I meant.

Now I have clarified what I said and meant. If you don't like it well that is to bad.

Now can we get back to the subject at hand?

 

[Goobieman]

If you oppose state recognition of same-sex marriage, then:

1. You could be a bigot and think its the same as allowing adults to marry animals or children.

2. It could be for religious reasons.

3. You are obviously either ignorant of the basic principles of liberty, or you don't care.

Which one of these do you think applies to The Obama?
Hillary? Joe Biden?