Gay Marriage
- Thread starter 1X83Z
- 2,302 comments
- 85,014 views
mayorbill11
(Banned)
- 1,231
yes.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Because, apparently, he went through about 2 weeks ago and removed all of the posts he had made. I hadn't noticed it. He said he was leaving, but then he had made posts after that, so I assumed he had calmed down a little. Apparently not.
That's a shame, because it was interesting to discuss things with him. I'm sorry he couldn't "agree to disagree" with some of us, the way Pako manages to.
To be honest, they should all be scrapped and buried. They were the low of the lows, the worst of the worst - giving him the car for free doesn't begin to describe what the seller should be doing for anyone strong enough to give their self-respect away by buying (even taking) a Sunbird. It is simply the worst car ever produced, period.
Getting back on topic, what the hell is wrong with people being gay. If it makes them happy and it doesnt effect anybody what the hell is the problem. Also i think that gey couples have been given the same legal rights as married people here in the UK. People are narrow minded and stupid. Also just because some book written thousands of years ago thats full of obvious bull**** says its wrong isnt good enough to convince me. Some of the greatest minds of all time have been gay, the one that pops to mine first is Leonardo Da Vinci probably one of the smartest people ever doesnt make him a freak or wrong or anything like that. Gay bashing sucks.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
DelBoy I would normally dismiss your post as too abrasive for discussion. It's not very nice to call people's religion bull****. I would like to point out one subtlety in what you said though.
You are not trying to convince religious people that you are correct. They are trying to convince you. They are trying to convince the world that being gay is wrong, because the default is (and should be) that being gay is not wrong.
That is the distinction. If this argument ends without one person's beliefs being forced on everyone else, gay people will be allowed to marry legally.
You are not trying to convince religious people that you are correct. They are trying to convince you. They are trying to convince the world that being gay is wrong, because the default is (and should be) that being gay is not wrong.
That is the distinction. If this argument ends without one person's beliefs being forced on everyone else, gay people will be allowed to marry legally.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
There are different belief systems out there, some say "yah", some say "nah". One is based on Biblical teachings, and the other is based on modern political correctness in the name of equal rights. To each his/her own.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but didn't the Supreme Court recently rule in favor of same sex marriages?
- 3,194
Slightly-off-topic-but-feel-extreme-need-to-discuss Question:
What is it about Political Correctness that you dispise so much? Don't you think that it molds a more repectful individual when used properly? Don't you think society as a whole would be more hostile to one-and-other without it?
Maybe I have the whole thing wrong, but, when I refer to PC, I see it as a persons ability to make a positive impact on a potentially negative situation by virtue of the way they present their sysnopsis. (that didnt make much sence).
Damn-it,... now that I've pondered it,... I would REALLY like to know what the true definition of PC really is,..... any clue?
- 10,832
I doubt PC has any "true meaning". The problem with it is because it usurps common sense and places an unrealistic expectation on individuals. Are black people black or african-american? Are gays gays or homosexuals? Are midgets dwarfs or little people? Are blind people blind or visually challenged? Are indians native americans or indians?
When I say any one of those things you know what I mean. And yet this is somehow not enough. We not only have be aware of all these things but we have to be sensitive to the fact that they aren't comfortable with who they are. Their hyper-sensitivity to names proves it. And why should they care what I think anyway.
All these god damned faggots and midgets and injuns and gimps and dykes need to take a lude and chill out. Nobody gives a rat's ass what you are or want to be called. Get on with your own life and stop worrying about what everybody thinks about you... believe it or not, most people just don't think about you. And making me say "native american" doesn't change anything other than make think what a stupid, nonsensical PC name that is.
IMHO.
When I say any one of those things you know what I mean. And yet this is somehow not enough. We not only have be aware of all these things but we have to be sensitive to the fact that they aren't comfortable with who they are. Their hyper-sensitivity to names proves it. And why should they care what I think anyway.
All these god damned faggots and midgets and injuns and gimps and dykes need to take a lude and chill out. Nobody gives a rat's ass what you are or want to be called. Get on with your own life and stop worrying about what everybody thinks about you... believe it or not, most people just don't think about you. And making me say "native american" doesn't change anything other than make think what a stupid, nonsensical PC name that is.
IMHO.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
So it is ignorance that leaves us with slang names like rag-head because we don't know any different. The indians that I know want to by called (if you have to classify them as a race) by their tribal heritage, for example Soux, or Blackfeet. It is our ignorance of not knowing what tribe they're from that we call them indian or native american. It is by their special rights of being indian that keeps their race seperated from the rest of america, the same is true for the rest of the minorities. As long as special interest programs are out their, there will always be a seperation of races, and the need to be able to define them.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
I understand derogatory terms needing to be eliminated. But some of these PC terms are just unecessary. Do migits really need to be called "little people". Isn't that what migit means? Is it really derogatory? I think it has gotten out of hand. We can all try to be sensative but the bottom line is that human beings can only do so much before they just don't know EVERYONE's culture well enough to treat everyone with kid gloves.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
I'm not sure if you missed my point... I'm saying that it is not right to force one's beliefs on others. That is what is going on with the gay marriage issue, if they are prevented from marrying. Not preventing them from marrying is the absence of forced beliefs.
- 3,194
The problem with that is that it's waaaaaaaaay too rational. Yeah, all-in-all, I'd agree 100% with everything you said,.... BUT, that's in a perfect world where everyone thinks rationally. What sucks is that PC is rational when placed in contrast with the human psyche (sp),... my point being,... without PC, we'd kill eachother (we meaning that unrational morons who think they deserve credit for what their ancestors/friends persecuted went through) in masses.
So, I'm torn,... IMO, PC is needed for human kind,.... but, I guess I dont believe in it.
It is my opinion that religion is a crock of **** and it is the single most destructive thing ever concived. Just look at the world, how many of these petty stoopid wars are about religion. I admit that some people may benefit from having belife, but its not god they shoud be beliving in its themselves. Religion is a by product of ancient people trying to explain what was around them. Now we can explain it with science and it disproves religion. I am not against people practacing religion, people can do whatever they want (to a point) as far as im concerned. I just belive that the world would be better off without it. One example close to home for me is northern ireland. Catholics and protestants, these people hate each other and they belive in pretty much exactly the same thing its insane.
Their is one question that i always fall back on.
What is more likely, Aliens on another planet somewhere in the infinity of space. Of a higher power that lives in some magic dimension and created everything?
I once asked the Bishop of the town i live in this question, and all he did was smile and and say 'Goodbye'. That was the final thing that convinced me it was all rubbish.
Their is one question that i always fall back on.
What is more likely, Aliens on another planet somewhere in the infinity of space. Of a higher power that lives in some magic dimension and created everything?
I once asked the Bishop of the town i live in this question, and all he did was smile and and say 'Goodbye'. That was the final thing that convinced me it was all rubbish.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
It would never hold up in a court of law, but also allowing same sex marriages to occur is also against someone else's belief system and/or religion. Sure it may or may not directly affect them personally, but it is still against what they believe.
So either way, it is going to be agianst someones belief system.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
But the difference is fundamental, Pako - and I know you're aware of it.
In the case of forbidding same-sex marriages, you are directly affecting the people who are involved (homosexuals), who are losing a freedom and a right.
In the case of allowing same-sex marriages, you are indirectly affecting the people who are involved (conservatives), and barely affecting them at that. Conservatives remain free to not get married to a person of the same gender and not associate with those who do.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Well, RER, you're coming at it from the right direction, as a foundation for mutual respect among all individuals (who do not forfeit that respect themselves). There's nothing wrong with that and in fact it's the only basis for a just society.
The problem is, as with so many things, the original intent has been lost and the PC movement is now all about cushioning everyone from everything, including their own shortcomings and problems.
I have a friend in a wheelchair, and I can respect him for everything except his ability to run and jump and kick, because frankly, he sucks at those things. He's the first to admit it. So to him, he feels perfectly capable of earning respect despite his handicap (his word), and he doesn't need some PC fascist to tell him he should be called "physically challenged" instead of "crippled".
So that's why milefile and I and a lot of other people hate the so-called "political correctness". It's yet another form of Liberal Guilt, and as with all forms of Liberal Guilt it's obsessed with treating the symptoms but has absolutely no concept of the cause.
Danoff
Premium
- 34,134
- Mile High City
Nobody ever seems to miss the subtleties when you're attacking their opinion. But they always seem to miss them when you're justifying your argument.
This is true, sortof. I guess what I'm saying is that it is not fair for your belief system to require others to have a certain belief. You have to swallow that before you can accept my (earlier stated) argument.
I say, no one is forced to live anyone else's belief system if you do not prevent homosexual marriage. You say, my belief system requires that others not engage in that activity, so I am forced to live someone else's belief system if it is allowed.
I say, that's an invalid belief system and doesn't have any place in American thinking. Our country is founded on allowing others to think what they want. If you want to make it your belief system that others should think something you want them to and want to enforce that, then you need to make your own country or go someplace with more oppression. America is not for you. Here we allow others to think what they want.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
Your statement, while technically valid, is not relevant to the issue at hand or any similar issue. Unless you choose to have yourself mentally and physically duplicated, and form a closed-system society of Pakos living in total isolation from the rest of the planet, you are going to encounter things that are against your beliefs, opinions, and desires. Even then it's pretty likely you will. Sometimes I feel like having a cup of coffee, and sometimes I don't. The times when I want a cup of coffee are against my beliefs of the times I don't.
Nothing in the Constitution or even in a Utopian society guarantees you that you will never see things of which you disapprove. But the Utopian society that the Constitution could provide would guarantee that you didn't have to participate in things of which you don't approve.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Western civilization used to follow Christian Morals and Standards within our legislative system. It was the standard by which Americans adopted and supported. With the diversity of opinions and cultures as well as the evident moral decay in our society today, new legislation has to be formed to help in creating new legislative, moral standards. I say America is for me, and anyone else who chooses to live here under our laws and regulations.
Sorry, but the thought of an island of Pako's brought a visual to my mind that actually made me laugh out loud. I totally agree with your statement, and your prior statement as well. No argument here.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
This is totally open to debate at best, and dead wrong at worst. I don't have time to go into it at the moment, but the statement "America was founded on Christian principles" is absolutely incorrect. If you wish to discuss it, please validate your statement in terms of the Constitution.
Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian, no matter how badly Jerry Falwell wishes to pretend otherwise.
- 3,194
Well,.. I guess it's just me then,.. cause, my concience alone, wont allow me to call someone who I see is handicaped, a 'cripple', or a black man a Nigger, or a homosexual a fagget. IMO, it's just plain old disrepect,... you can toss PC right out the window I guess,.... to me, it's all about respect for your fellow man, reguardless of who they are.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you - the only part of the bible I support 100%.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,455
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
So why are same sex marriages even a legislative issue? The proof of my argument is evident in the argument itself. So even if they weren't founded on Christian morals, the legislative morals of the day, when the original laws were created, paralleled Christian morals. Legislation is continuing to redefine our nation's moral system for us through legislation.
Similar threads
