Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

[Dondrei]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

People who are pro *** marriage shouldn't allow themselves to be sidetracked into a discussion about whether homosexuality is a choice or not. That is irrelevant.

Religion is a choice (one you can far more easily change, as it happens) but I'd love to see someone try to ban Christians from marrying, for example.

 

[Relativity]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

If you ever knew how stupid that makes you sound, you'd be ashamed to ever post here again.

Stupid to who? You? From what I've seen you've spewed nothing but stereotypical ultra-conservative/religious im-always-right bull**** throughout this entire thread. Johnny's right.

That aside, I think this issue can be summed up as follows:
- the definition of marriage can't be locked down as 'one man and one woman' unless government intervenes, and since doing so would be considered political suicide in a lot of places, they won't
- there will always be 'churches' willing to marry *** people, until people like mervyn start burning them down

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

You being word one to three of definition 1 and all of the words of definition 2 and 3. Possibly not word 9 of definition 2. Depending on the IT bubble.

Like I said, spectacularly wrong in every sense. <Maybe> reactionary, as in anti-revolutionary (per Communism). I'm not a farmer; I might <own> stock in a farm company at some later date.

Stupid to who? You? From what I've seen you've spewed nothing but stereotypical ultra-conservative/religious im-always-right bull**** throughout this entire thread. Johnny's right.

Johnny's full of carp, as usual; you just haven't paid enough attention to know it. "Stupid" as in not saying things which are accurate (per above), in the same sense which you've demonstrated. For instance, I could easily be considered socially liberal, as I am pro-civil union. The fact that you place more faith in your imagined stereotype of me, a faceless Internet entity (who has previously admitted being black), demonstrates this same stupidity.

 

[BobCox2]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Well if Johnny calls you stupid tell him you may not have an award for being SMRT but you try...

 

[Magi]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

... me, a faceless Internet entity (who has previously admitted being black)...

What does being black have to do with anything? I missed where one's race was relevent to one's viewpoint on this subject (or relevent to anything for that matter.)

edit: unless you're saying, "It's ok to have xyz viewpoint because i'm insert race here."

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

What does being black have to do with anything? I missed where one's race was relevent to one's viewpoint on this subject (or relevent to anything for that matter.)

Aside from the false equivalency of race with being queer, Johnny went the extra mile down Stupid Boulevard by labeling me a "redneck".

 

[Relativity]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

you place more faith in your imagined stereotype of me

Since you seem to have missed it the first time: everything you have written in this thread is stereotypical ultra-conservative/religious im-always-right bull****. If you're saying it isn't then add delusional to that sentence. And if there's an imagined stereotype of you, it's only because you can't stop feeding it.

For instance, I could easily be considered socially liberal, as I am pro-civil union.

HAH.

 

[Magi]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

...labeling me a "redneck"...

Black people can be rednecks too. I live right next to a black dude who talks with a crazy southern drawl, wears those $1.99 baseball caps from the quikie mart that are about 10 inches too tall, and goes to tractor pulls every weekend. He also has a friend that comes by to visit who is also black AND a redneck. (they BOTH drive raggedy Ford pickup trucks too if that makes a difference ). :thumbup:

There's no such thing as "I can/can't be xyz because I'm [insert race here]." Whenever there is a stereotype (weather you're labeled by others or self-labeled), there is always someone out there that goes against it.

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

everything you have written in this thread is stereotypical ultra-conservative/religious im-always-right bull****. If you're saying it isn't then add delusional to that sentence.

Doubtless that's why I endorse civil unions, have queer friends, and don't associate queers with child molesters.

And if there's an imagined stereotype of you, it's only because you can't stop feeding it.

Or, well, that intolerant bigots come in all flavors. Just sayin'... :whistling:

Black people can be rednecks too.

In certain senses, you're quite right. But the sense in which Johnny and others intend it, i.e. a white racism slur akin to "cracker", it's quite ludicrous. Statistically there's probably an insignificant number that really are self-hating racists, but that's like the "infinite number of monkeys" argument.

There was a British NSDAP during WW2 for that matter; I think there were 3 members.

But they had a uniform!

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Relativity:

Since you [jmervyn] seem to have missed it the first time: everything you have written in this thread is stereotypical ultra-conservative/religious im-always-right bull****. If you're saying it isn't then add delusional to that sentence. And if there's an imagined stereotype of you, it's only because you can't stop feeding it.

As compared to Johnny, whose writings in this thread typify the stereotypical ultra-liberal, anti-religious, all-people-who-don’t-agree-with-me-are-Neanderthal-idiots, hypocritical (I demand that you accept my life-style and opinions but I’ll be damned before I’ll accept yours), leftist?

Johnny admitted to being a troll in this thread from the get-go. jmervyn’s response is exactly what he expected and wanted. In my opinion, there was little attempt made to have a real dialogue on this issue.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

(I demand that you accept my life-style and opinions but I’ll be damned before I’ll accept yours), leftist?

How on earth do *** people getting married oppress straight peoples life style?

 

[Tanooki]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

How on earth does something that's going on in the US affect you? Either we're all connected, or we're not.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Maybe you should read the topic again. Note the part where it does not mention the united states.

Now I would like to see Tanookis argument where *** people getting married negatively effects his life.

 

[Amra]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

If you ever knew how stupid that makes you sound, you'd be ashamed to ever post here again. But then again, you seem to revel in it.

Agreed. I think he needs a job.

Aside from the false equivalency of race with being queer, Johnny went the extra mile down Stupid Boulevard by labeling me a "redneck".

He calls me a redneck - and many other names - all the time. Maybe we should form a club? Oh, I'm a racist, don't believe women should work or vote either. And clearly we didn't land on the Moon. Tell me Jmervyn, do you practice the Dark Arts of hunting and fishing? Chop your own firewood?

Relativity:

As compared to Johnny, whose writings in this thread typify the stereotypical ultra-liberal, anti-religious, all-people-who-don’t-agree-with-me-are-Neanderthal-idiots, hypocritical (I demand that you accept my life-style and opinions but I’ll be damned before I’ll accept yours), leftist?

Johnny admitted to being a troll in this thread from the get-go. jmervyn’s response is exactly what he expected and wanted. In my opinion, there was little attempt made to have a real dialogue on this issue.

Yup. Surprised the mods allowed that.

I wonder if he used up all his pre-made responses. :scratchchin:

 

[jmervyn]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Tell me Jmervyn, do you practice the Dark Arts of hunting and fishing? Chop your own firewood?

Actually, it's surprising that I'm not a hunter (aside from clubbing small animals to death).

And that reminds me, I need to sharpen my axe. :evil2:

 

[KillerAim]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Johnny:

How on earth do *** people getting married oppress straight peoples life style?

I’ve covered this in a very early post, but let me reiterate my answer here.

Society has, for good or worse (I believe worse), decided to use the Government as a device for social engineering. By this, I mean that the Government encourages certain behaviors and discourages others NOT because they are directly harmful to others, but because they feel those practices result in the betterment of Society as a whole. Marriage is one of these encouraged practices. According to the activist Website I quoted, there are over a 1,000 “rights, benefits and responsibilities that are available to married couples but unavailable to same-sex couples who are denied the right to marryâ€. Many of these benefits are paid for by Society as a whole, which means adding people to the group that can be married incurs additional obligations on us all.

While you definitely have a right to cohabit and contract with any combination of willing participants you can think of, you do NOT have a right to demand that the rest of Society either encourage or support your decision. Our society, and I suspect yours also, has decided that it wants to encourage specific combinations to become married. What combination or combinations it decides to encourage should be up to the will of the people and; at this point in time, the majority of Americans do not want to endorse same-sex marriages. That is their right.

As a libertarian, I do not believe that it is ever the role of Government to encourage or discourage behavior. One of the main reasons I feel this way is evidenced by what are the two results of the government getting involved in the endorsement of marriage. Either you have people having their money used to support behavior/actions they don’t approve of (same-sex marriages) or you have people having their money used to support behavior/actions they are not allowed to do themselves (no same-sex marriages).

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Society has, for good or worse (I believe worse), decided to use the Government as a device for social engineering. By this, I mean that the Government encourages certain behaviors and discourages others NOT because they are directly harmful to others, but because they feel those practices result in the betterment of Society as a whole. Marriage is one of these encouraged practices. According to the activist Website I quoted, there are over a 1,000 “rights, benefits and responsibilities that are available to married couples but unavailable to same-sex couples who are denied the right to marry”. Many of these benefits are paid for by Society as a whole, which means adding people to the group that can be married incurs additional obligations on us all.

Aren't *** people also paying taxes towards these things? Why should they not be able to benefit from them?

While you definitely have a right to cohabit and contract with any combination of willing participants you can think of, you do NOT have a right to demand that the rest of Society either encourage or support your decision. Our society, and I suspect yours also, has decided that it wants to encourage specific combinations to become married. What combination or combinations it decides to encourage should be up to the will of the people and; at this point in time, the majority of Americans do not want to endorse same-sex marriages. That is their right.

*** people don't need you to encourage them getting married. They need you to not legislate against their ability to get married.

As a libertarian, I do not believe that it is ever the role of Government to encourage or discourage behavior. One of the main reasons I feel this way is evidenced by what are the two results of the government getting involved in the endorsement of marriage. Either you have people having their money used to support behavior/actions they don’t approve of (same-sex marriages) or you have people having their money used to support behavior/actions they are not allowed to do themselves (no same-sex marriages).

So maybe *** people should get a tax deduction then in the form of the money that they pay towards all these benefits that heterosexual couples get.

You know what. I am also revolted by the idea of big hairy men having sex, but I do not demand that my opinion be made in to the law.

The anti-*** marriage people always scream about wanting their views respect but what it comes down to is them butting in on something that is not their business. The government has the power to wed people and to recognize the marriage legally. Both *** and straight people pay towards this but only straight people get to benefit from it.

It's like if I went to the cinema and wanted to see Terminator. Some anti-violence guy comes up to me and says he doesn't want me to see the movie. That is his opinion, I will still go see the movie as is my right, but now he wants to make it illegal for me to go see the movie. All of a sudden he wants his taste legislated which is a very dangerous matter. When I tell him that he does not have a saying on what movie I want to watch then he all of a sudden demands that I should respect his view on the matter. As if we need to reach some common ground between his opinions and my rights.

We are weighing the rights of the *** community against the opinion of the anti-*** community.

 

[SaroDarksbane]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Aren't *** people also paying taxes towards these things? Why should they not be able to benefit from them?

That is indeed his objection:

Either you have people having their money used to support behavior/actions they don’t approve of (same-sex marriages) or you have people having their money used to support behavior/actions they are not allowed to do themselves (no same-sex marriages).

 

[Uncle_Mike]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Aren't *** people also paying taxes towards these things?

Pedophiles also pay taxes, that's not a valid argument. Pacifists are obliged to pay taxes even though it helps finance the military.

One of the principles of the tax system is that you are supposed to pay taxes and have no direct influence on where the money goes to.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Should homosexuals be allowed to marry people of the same gender? Yay or Nay

Pedophiles

Can't we go one page without you people comparing homosexuality to paedophilia? We know how messed up your moral compas is without you being so direct about it.