|
Post by k5 on May 11, 2012 8:02:04 GMT -5
i find it funny. homosexuality has existed since the dawn of man and is not going anywhere. it is something that naturally occurs.
i must say i'm impressed by the lack of negative crap in this thread, a few years ago i swear this would've been locked by now.
PROGRESSION!
|
|
|
Post by Hulkamaniac on May 11, 2012 8:29:36 GMT -5
By avoiding the vote, you're saying that you don't care whether people have equal rights under the law. No, I'm saying that I won't have a hand in deciding such a thing for other people. You can't back someone into a corner on the issue. If someone votes against it, they're wrong for denying others equal rights. If someone votes for it, they're condoning and agreeing with it even if they say they don't. I disagree. You can condone it from a legal stance and condemn it from a moral stance can you not? I think people cheating on their spouses is morally contemptible. Would I be in favor of a law that would toss people in jail for doing it? Not at all.
|
|
|
Post by Ben - #6 Munchie on May 11, 2012 11:40:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 11, 2012 11:48:38 GMT -5
where's the paternity test? nowhere in that article does it say that they did any testing to see if the child was actually the father's. not saying it's not true, and i know a professor specializing in genetics had his input, but still...i think the most logical answer here is a different father.
|
|
|
Post by Yeezy's Mullet: Team X Blades on May 11, 2012 12:14:48 GMT -5
1.Of all things, why even argue with that? It does nothing for the discussion at hand. 2.I refuse to take that story seriously coming from The Sun. 3. Where's the paternity test? I could swear up and down that any kid was mine. Doesn't do very well without proof.
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on May 11, 2012 14:02:44 GMT -5
As I said above, you misinterpreted what was being said in the first sentence and I already explained it. The issue here is that you have a problem with the way I feel, so you're trying to put words into my mouth and get me to say something or imply something that I don't intend to. That's why it's so hard telling people my stance on this issue. So no, I'm not full of crap and you can take your "playing hardball" political tactics somewhere else. What is there to "misinterpret?" I'm not saying that anyone should be denied equal rights
If I HAD to vote on it, I'd vote against it based on my beliefs. But as long as I had the choice, I wouldn't, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that if it's for the right reasons.
No one is "putting words in your mouth." You typed it. Not us. Your stance on this issue is that you try to claim you are for equal rights because it makes you feel good about yourself. In reality, you're a bigot who is NOT for equal rights and would vote AGAINST equal rights. That crap might fly with people who don't understand what the phrase, "equal rights" means, but for someone who does, it's pretty obvious that you're completely full of crap. Just calling it like it is. I said in the beginning that I wouldn't vote on it at all, and you forced that to read "I don't care if people have equal rights" when that's not what I meant at all. So as long as you're going to be putting words in my mouth, I'll politely bow out of this discussion. First of all... NOT VOTING FOR EQUAL RIGHTS IS THE SAME THING AS VOTING AGAINST EQUAL RIGHTS. Let's say that, hypothetically, there was a vote tomorrow that said, "All African Americans will be sold back to slavery." If you do not get your ass out and vote for the FREEDOM of this group of people, then you are saying that you do not care whether they are sold into slavery or not. Thus, you are NOT for equal rights. This isn't that hard of a concept to understand. Second... You said you would vote AGAINST their rights if you had to! So no, you are NOT for equal rights.
|
|
|
Post by Ben - #6 Munchie on May 11, 2012 19:29:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 11, 2012 20:46:14 GMT -5
First off, that first sentence was saying that if someone voted against it, that's how they'd be viewed. I didn't mean it as a statement that I was making. I said it to make the point that people who feel the way I do are being backed into a corner and spoonfed ideals that they don't really share. So I wasn't contradicting myself. You said you're in favor of equality, then said you would have voted against it. That would be me saying I think women should have the right to vote, but then vote in favor of a bill that bans it.
|
|
StingerSplash
Main Eventer
Give em' the Scorpion Death Drop.
Joined on: Jun 6, 2009 11:30:40 GMT -5
Posts: 3,976
|
Post by StingerSplash on May 11, 2012 21:56:14 GMT -5
"Anyone who disagrees is a bigot who wants to deprive rights from all of humanity."
- About 95% of People in this Thread
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 11, 2012 22:33:34 GMT -5
"Anyone who disagrees pushes/votes for legistlation is a bigot who wants to deprive rights from all of humanity." - About 95% of People in this Thread
|
|
|
Post by Kliquid on May 12, 2012 0:18:14 GMT -5
Agreed, ARR.
|
|
|
Post by DontHassleTheHoff on May 12, 2012 5:25:39 GMT -5
Marriage is an act of binding two people. I think many americans forget that you can't just plant a big cross on the term and call it christian. Marriage pre-dates christianity. It is not a term that belongs to any particular religion and thusly should not have to follow the beliefs of a religion on homosexuality.
If a particular church has a backwards stance that gay marriage is wrong, they should be allowed to deny the use of their venue (as i believe they can actualy do with most hetrosexual marriages should they have any objections), however the actual act of gay marriage should be welcomed with open arms and they should be allowed to express their love for one another just as much as any straight couple. Some churches will welcome it with open arms, others will be less inclined to.
|
|
|
Post by Adam on May 12, 2012 8:05:08 GMT -5
If a particular church has a backwards stance that gay marriage is wrong, they should be allowed to deny the use of their venue (as i believe they can actualy do with most hetrosexual marriages should they have any objections), however the actual act of gay marriage should be welcomed with open arms and they should be allowed to express their love for one another just as much as any straight couple. Some churches will welcome it with open arms, others will be less inclined to. You hit one of the misconceptions right on the head. A lot of people seem to think that if gay marriage is legalized, that means that churches will be forced to perform the ceremonies. It doesn't help when so many people think we were founded as a Christian nation.
|
|
|
Post by DontHassleTheHoff on May 12, 2012 9:37:45 GMT -5
If a particular church has a backwards stance that gay marriage is wrong, they should be allowed to deny the use of their venue (as i believe they can actualy do with most hetrosexual marriages should they have any objections), however the actual act of gay marriage should be welcomed with open arms and they should be allowed to express their love for one another just as much as any straight couple. Some churches will welcome it with open arms, others will be less inclined to. You hit one of the misconceptions right on the head. A lot of people seem to think that if gay marriage is legalized, that means that churches will be forced to perform the ceremonies. It doesn't help when so many people think we were founded as a Christian nation. I think that is pretty much the main reason why people arn't in favour of it, they just assume churches will be pushed into it, when in actuality it would be the churches choice, if you disagree with the choice that chuch makes, you're going to the wrong church. It baffles me how the USA of all countries can be so deeply christian, considering it is essentially a melting pot of all colours, nationalities and religions...You really would have thought they would be the most accepting and tolerant nation in the world, but sadly, it isn't the case.
|
|
|
Post by CM Poor on May 12, 2012 10:18:59 GMT -5
I just don't see the church connection. I wasn't married in a church. My wedding wasn't performed by a member of the clergy. I did, however, marry a woman. Even still, if we had decided to get married in a Catholic church, we would have been vehemently denied that opportunity lest we retroactively submitted to holy sacraments we both had not performed following our decision to not identify as Catholic Christians (I have never been to confessional or confirmed my faith, she had never confirmed her faith). I know this, as my brother will be married in a Catholic church and is right now undergoing this sort of thing.
Back to the point - the Church, in line with their definition of how and when marriage can be undertaken, had we gone to them, would have been able to deny us our "right" to marry. However, we were still able to seek out a venue, and a Justice of the Peace, and carry out our marriage on our own terms. Our marriage is still recognized by the state.
If I can get married outside the confines of the church, why can we not offer homosexuals the same rights? I got married without impeding on the church's right to practice their religion. I still carry all the rights and privileges that come with being married. How would allowing this avenue to homosexual couples have any bearing whatsoever on the church?
|
|
|
Post by Keyboard Cat on May 12, 2012 10:53:05 GMT -5
I agree...
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on May 12, 2012 12:34:57 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by /X Metal Sorenges x "Mac Oh J~ on May 12, 2012 12:38:03 GMT -5
I agree... Isn't that a great way to describe it.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on May 12, 2012 13:38:52 GMT -5
"Anyone who disagrees is a bigot who wants to deprive rights from all of humanity." - About 95% of People in this Thread well...argue how that is not the case instead of making a single remark. everyone else is taking the time to type out thorough explanations of their stances on it. why not do the same? if there is any base logic other than hate and fear going on, let's hear it. by not doing so it appears as an admittance of fault.
|
|
|
Post by Lord Ragnarok on May 12, 2012 13:43:08 GMT -5
Oh, and one other thing. Yeezy's Mullet had said earlier that he's not convinced that people don't choose to be homosexual, maybe you should take a look at this:
|
|