Home » General Discussions » Heated Discussions and Debates » prop 8 california passes
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357683 is a reply to message #357476] |
Fri, 07 November 2008 13:45   |
Genesis2001
Messages: 1397
Registered: August 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Arizona also had this proposition on their ballet. I didn't put down a vote on it because I don't have a strong opinion about it....
But, I'm starting to agree with my friend about the issue. It should be permitted (and they have the same rights as all of us), but they children shouln't be made to have to go through a same-sex marriage....It'll just harm them. I am NOT saying same-sex marriage is bad for children though...
And, that is my position.
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357684 is a reply to message #357682] |
Fri, 07 November 2008 13:55 |
|
|
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 15:41 |
Once again, people are misinterpreting what he's saying. He means it's disgusting to him, as in he doesn't want it to happen to him. Hence, "personally".
At the same time, when you see a straight couple kissing and you're a guy, what are you concentrating on? Chances are, your subconscious places you in the spot of the guy. When it's both guys kissing though and you're a guy, you picture yourself as one of the guys more than likely.
Also, note that there's a difference between having an opinion, and having that opinion affect things.
|
How can I misinterpret what he said? He didn't say, "I couldn't allow myself to engage in any homosexual acts." He said it's disgusting and, also, "kind of nasty".
If you're right about his opinion, maybe he should just let you speak for him. He does a poor job of defending himself.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357686 is a reply to message #357684] |
Fri, 07 November 2008 14:13 |
 |
u6795
Messages: 1261
Registered: March 2006
Location: Maryland
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| cheesesoda wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 15:55 |
| Cabal8616 wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 15:41 |
Once again, people are misinterpreting what he's saying. He means it's disgusting to him, as in he doesn't want it to happen to him. Hence, "personally".
At the same time, when you see a straight couple kissing and you're a guy, what are you concentrating on? Chances are, your subconscious places you in the spot of the guy. When it's both guys kissing though and you're a guy, you picture yourself as one of the guys more than likely.
Also, note that there's a difference between having an opinion, and having that opinion affect things.
|
How can I misinterpret what he said? He didn't say, "I couldn't allow myself to engage in any homosexual acts." He said it's disgusting and, also, "kind of nasty".
If you're right about his opinion, maybe he should just let you speak for him. He does a poor job of defending himself.
|
Well, I wouldn't allow myself to engage in homosexual acts, but that's an entirely different matter from me simply saying that gay people are disgusting.
I see nothing wrong with someone having an opinion like that. Things like race, yeah, that's another issue again, but sexual preference is different.
How do I do a poor job defending myself? I try, but this topic is sort of confusing me as it's hard to tell if people are commenting on my posts or not. I'm also retarded, so that's part of the blame right there.
By the way, I do sometimes let Cabal speak for me. He knows me well enough that I don't mind.
yeah
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357692 is a reply to message #357476] |
Fri, 07 November 2008 15:12 |
 |
GoArmy44
Messages: 265
Registered: October 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
Constitutionally since marriage (of any kind)is not addressed in the Constitution, under the 10th Amendment the states are in their right to make laws governing it. California's citizens made their decision, if you don't like it then get active in your state to make it legal or make a national amendment to the Constitution.
Until gays can prove that they did not choose to be gay they won't become a clearly defined group by the government and so will find it hard to prove victim status by the Equal Protection Clause which I see some of you have alluded to when you say "equal rights."
Reconcilia Rem Publicam!
[Updated on: Fri, 07 November 2008 16:06] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357694 is a reply to message #357476] |
Fri, 07 November 2008 16:01 |
 |
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Ironically, exit polls showed that 70% of blacks voted for the proposition.
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_10909847?source%253Dmost_emailed.26978592730A3B8C7 F471EACE0DA4EF2.html
So while many people danced in the streets over the election of America's first black president, believing that equality had finally been recognized... another group has become more marginalized. Sad day, really.
Gay people aren't 'disgusting' . All the people I've met that represent the seedy dregs of society are straight. In fact, gay people represent one of the highest income brackets in North America, with a lot of purchasing power, meaning many of them are educated, and hard working; they get that attitude from dealing with assholes who think they're disgusting.
Plus, who cares if a kid has two dad's? Is it any worse than a kid who's parents aren't on speaking terms, and he switches houses every second day? Frankly, I think a house of broken love would fuck a kid up more.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
[Updated on: Fri, 07 November 2008 16:08] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357696 is a reply to message #357476] |
Fri, 07 November 2008 16:12 |
 |
GEORGE ZIMMER
Messages: 2605
Registered: March 2006
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Hahahaha. Wow. I'm going to sound racist here, but holy shit, is it just me, or are alot of black people just as racist as they like to claim white people are? Or rather, outright ignorant?
Toggle Spoiler| Scrin wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 13:22 |
| cAmpa wrote on Sat, 24 January 2009 12:45 |
Scrin, stop pming people to get the building bars.
|
FUCK YOU AND THIS SHIT GAME WITH YOUR SCRIPTS!!! I HAVE ASKING YOU AND ANOTHER NOOBS HERE ABOUT HELP WITH THAT BUILDING ICONS FEATURES FOR YEARS, BUT YOU KEEP IGNORING ME AND KEEP WRITE SHIT, SO BURN YOU AND YOUR ASSLICKERS FRIENDS, THIS TIME I'M NOT COME BACK!!!!!!!!!   
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357712 is a reply to message #357696] |
Fri, 07 November 2008 22:25 |
 |
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
Prop 8 FTW.
Not a bit ironic (by your logic) as Blacks and Latinos also make up for the better part of the Christian population within the United States.
I can bring up the stats but can't be bothered/lazy.
| nikki6ixx wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 17:01 |
they get that attitude from dealing with assholes
|
You got that right.
----
Marriage should be defined as a "union between two humans that are naturally capable of conceiving and bearing children."
[Updated on: Fri, 07 November 2008 23:34] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357718 is a reply to message #357712] |
Sat, 08 November 2008 01:40 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| pawkyfox wrote on Sat, 08 November 2008 00:25 |
Marriage should be defined as a "union between two humans that are naturally capable of conceiving and bearing children."
|
Why?
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357723 is a reply to message #357476] |
Sat, 08 November 2008 02:12 |
z310
Messages: 2459
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
How can you state that without a fucking reason?
Marriage - to the government - is a social contract that gives
certain benefits to a couple. None of the benefits have any
reason to be limited to hetrosexual couples. So what the fuck?
Separate but equal is nonsense.
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357739 is a reply to message #357476] |
Sat, 08 November 2008 08:34 |
|
|
No, no. I think pawky's definition is fine. How dare we let elderly couples and infertile couples marry, anyway. They're such a fucking abomination to humanity.
Post-menopause? HA! That's just an excuse for those women to live in sin. Impotence? Don't even get me started on what load of shit this is. If what they were doing was moral, God wouldn't let those heterosexual couples be unable to conceive. I mean, Abram and Sarai conceived when they were old, so I see no reason why other elderly couples can't, as well.
Oh, and my parents are living in sin, too. My mother had a hysterectomy, and my dad had a vasectomy. They are completely incapable of procreation. Therefore, their marriage should be nullified.
Oh, pawky, you're a fucking idiot.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357753 is a reply to message #357476] |
Sat, 08 November 2008 13:10 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
One other thing...
I don't understand why people believe that being gay is a 'choice' , especially when gay people are still subjected to humiliation, and ostracizing within society; even injury, or death at the hands of some homophobic dipshit is still a very real possibility in this day and age.. That's not exactly a lifestyle many would want to pursue
I've met one dude who's own family has more or less disowned him because of his orientation. Even going home for Christmas is painful, because his parents, the 'good Catholics' , are always trying to set him up with a girl, or leave pamphlets about those camps that are supposed to 'rehabilitate' people of a different orientation.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
[Updated on: Sat, 08 November 2008 15:05] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357789 is a reply to message #357476] |
Sat, 08 November 2008 20:38 |
 |
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
One of my best friends is a lesbian; when she gets married (some day) I intend to be her best man, assuming her brother doesn't lay first claim to the position. Maybe by that time I'll have a girlfriend or a wife of my own, and I sure as hell want one of the kindest, most caring human beings I've ever met to have the same shot at happiness.
I don't think I really need to elaborate too much where I come down on gay rights; majority rule does not grant the majority the power to oppress the minority. Might does not make right; opinion makes poor policy. Every citizen of this country is guaranteed equal protection under law- if a right or a privilege is granted to one, it must be granted to all. An individual or group may feel however they wish about any other individual or group, but to use the democratic process as a vehicle to deny others rights which they enjoy themselves is nothing more nor less than a betrayal and a gross violation of every ideal this nation claims to stand for.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357852 is a reply to message #357476] |
Sun, 09 November 2008 14:15 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Bump, because I'm really curious as to what his reasoning is.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357880 is a reply to message #357476] |
Sun, 09 November 2008 18:30 |
 |
R315r4z0r
Messages: 3836
Registered: March 2005
Location: New York
Karma: 0
|
General (3 Stars) |
|
|
What really ticks me off is that people don't see this as unconstitutional because it was voted on, but when it comes to things such as raising/lowering the drinking age, gun control, abortion, ect, a vote is redundant because it's thought to be unconstitutional none-the-less.
It's contradicting and it just goes to show that rules do not exist for the general idea of things, but rather completely on an individual bases.
[Updated on: Sun, 09 November 2008 18:30] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #357987 is a reply to message #357907] |
Mon, 10 November 2008 16:01 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| z310 wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 00:15 |
| nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 09 November 2008 13:15 |
Bump, because I'm really curious as to what his reasoning is.
|
|
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #358014 is a reply to message #357880] |
Mon, 10 November 2008 20:05 |
|
GoArmy44
Messages: 265
Registered: October 2003
Location: Oklahoma
Karma: 0
|
Recruit |
|
|
| R315r4z0r wrote on Sun, 09 November 2008 19:30 |
What really ticks me off is that people don't see this as unconstitutional because it was voted on, but when it comes to things such as raising/lowering the drinking age, gun control, abortion, ect, a vote is redundant because it's thought to be unconstitutional none-the-less.
It's contradicting and it just goes to show that rules do not exist for the general idea of things, but rather completely on an individual bases.
|
Which constitution? State or Federal? The preposition was to amend the California Constitution...so it's constitutional in that respect as an amendment changes the constitution. Concerning the federal I see a possible argument concerning the Equal Protection Clause but gays have to prove that they did not choose to be gay, thus saying they had no choice at being lumped into a group that they claim doesn't have equal rights. But there are a hundred ways for that to shoot down.
I have a feeling that this matter wasn't addressed in the Constitution because throughout history and not just in their day, marriage consisted between man and woman, especially in the judeo-christian west. Either in polytheistic or monotheistic cultures, homosexuals did in fact exist but for the overwhelming majority of the time were kept out of family life. Even in Greece where homosexuality could be said to have thrived, it was by no means a family building endeavor as both men had wives(who for the most part did not participate, a counterexample would be Sappho) and children.
Reconcilia Rem Publicam!
[Updated on: Mon, 10 November 2008 20:09] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #358019 is a reply to message #357476] |
Mon, 10 November 2008 21:26 |
|
NukeIt15
Messages: 987
Registered: February 2003
Location: Out to lunch
Karma: 0
|
Colonel |
|
|
And for some reason now I guess we're supposed to look backwards and say "well, this is how it's always been so it must be the right way." I'm sorry, what? For tens of thousands of years humanity governed itself through a combination of strong-arm tactics, showmanship, and heredity, but I think most of us realize that there are newer ways that just work better in the modern world. In older times, when our understanding of brain and body chemistry was less complete (even nonexistent), one could perhaps be forgiven for claiming that homosexuality was an aberration, an abomination, and downright strange- but with the knowledge we have today, we ought to fucking know better.
We're asking a group to prove that they deserve protection in order to receive it. Since when was that the way it's supposed to work in this country? No, it is meant to be the other way around- those who wish to deny it to them must instead provide a compelling reason why it should be denied. Any reason beginning with the words "throughout history" or "it isn't natural" is not compelling; it fails to provide any evidence whatsoever that allowing a homosexual couple to get married would do harm to other citizens of this country, or of the state in which they reside. The case against has yet to be made; the case for is provided by the overwhelming number of citizens, who have done no harm to anyone, asking for what ought to have already been theirs by simply being citizens in the first place, since the rights they seek are guaranteed to anyone else.
And for everyone who says they wouldn't oppose gay rights if only the gays would shut up about it, wake up and smell the fucking coffee! Can you think of a single cause in recorded history that ever succeeded because its champions decided to sit quietly and not bother anybody? This is the proven process: Activism creates awareness, awareness generates interest, interest generates support, support generates success. If no toes are stepped on, the media doesn't pay attention. Fortunately, all it seems to take for gays to get the required coverage is to be obvious in public, and the die-hard reactionaries do the rest of the work for them. If they drop out of the spotlight, nobody agitates for change and the status quo is maintained, which is most decidedly not what they're after. If you'd rather they shut up and stop bothering you, fine, but do try to realize the full extent of what you're asking for (unless you do already and are just trying to mask the sentiment).
Keep in mind that nobody (sane) is asking for marriages between twelve year olds and adults here; everything on the table (including polygamy, which by the way means multiple spouses of either gender) covers relationships between consenting adults. To disallow any such relationship through the passage and enforcement of a law is to say that the government knows better than the people it governs what is best for them. What the fuck, people? Does anybody even realize how silly that sounds? What the churches do is up to the churches, but the government is treading on some pretty shaky ground. Whether homosexuality is rooted in psychology or biology, it doesn't matter one bit- or shouldn't, anyway.
"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine
Remember, kids: illiteracy is cool. If you took the time to read this, you are clearly a loser who will never get laid. You've been warned.
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #358026 is a reply to message #358019] |
Tue, 11 November 2008 00:23 |
|
|
| NukeIt15 wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 04:26 |
And for some reason now I guess we're supposed to look backwards and say "well, this is how it's always been so it must be the right way." I'm sorry, what? For tens of thousands of years humanity governed itself through a combination of strong-arm tactics, showmanship, and heredity, but I think most of us realize that there are newer ways that just work better in the modern world. In older times, when our understanding of brain and body chemistry was less complete (even nonexistent), one could perhaps be forgiven for claiming that homosexuality was an aberration, an abomination, and downright strange- but with the knowledge we have today, we ought to fucking know better.
We're asking a group to prove that they deserve protection in order to receive it. Since when was that the way it's supposed to work in this country? No, it is meant to be the other way around- those who wish to deny it to them must instead provide a compelling reason why it should be denied. Any reason beginning with the words "throughout history" or "it isn't natural" is not compelling; it fails to provide any evidence whatsoever that allowing a homosexual couple to get married would do harm to other citizens of this country, or of the state in which they reside. The case against has yet to be made; the case for is provided by the overwhelming number of citizens, who have done no harm to anyone, asking for what ought to have already been theirs by simply being citizens in the first place, since the rights they seek are guaranteed to anyone else.
And for everyone who says they wouldn't oppose gay rights if only the gays would shut up about it, wake up and smell the fucking coffee! Can you think of a single cause in recorded history that ever succeeded because its champions decided to sit quietly and not bother anybody? This is the proven process: Activism creates awareness, awareness generates interest, interest generates support, support generates success. If no toes are stepped on, the media doesn't pay attention. Fortunately, all it seems to take for gays to get the required coverage is to be obvious in public, and the die-hard reactionaries do the rest of the work for them. If they drop out of the spotlight, nobody agitates for change and the status quo is maintained, which is most decidedly not what they're after. If you'd rather they shut up and stop bothering you, fine, but do try to realize the full extent of what you're asking for (unless you do already and are just trying to mask the sentiment).
Keep in mind that nobody (sane) is asking for marriages between twelve year olds and adults here; everything on the table (including polygamy, which by the way means multiple spouses of either gender) covers relationships between consenting adults. To disallow any such relationship through the passage and enforcement of a law is to say that the government knows better than the people it governs what is best for them. What the fuck, people? Does anybody even realize how silly that sounds? What the churches do is up to the churches, but the government is treading on some pretty shaky ground. Whether homosexuality is rooted in psychology or biology, it doesn't matter one bit- or shouldn't, anyway.
|
Thread over. Nice speech.
Renguard is a wonderful initiative
Toggle Spoiler
| BBC news, quoting... |
Supporters of Proposition 8 will argue California does not discriminate against gays, as the current law allows them to get married - as long as they wed a partner of the opposite sex.
|
| halokid wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 08:46 |
| R315r4z0r wrote on Mon, 11 October 2010 15:35 |
|
the hell is that?
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #358040 is a reply to message #357987] |
Tue, 11 November 2008 05:51 |
z310
Messages: 2459
Registered: July 2003
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
Thread not over:
| nikki6ixx wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 15:01 |
| z310 wrote on Mon, 10 November 2008 00:15 |
| nikki6ixx wrote on Sun, 09 November 2008 13:15 |
Bump, because I'm really curious as to what his reasoning is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #358213 is a reply to message #358040] |
Tue, 11 November 2008 20:09 |
|
Starbuzzz
Messages: 1637
Registered: June 2008
Karma: 0
|
General (1 Star) |
|
|
| nikki6ixx wrote on Fri, 07 November 2008 17:01 |
So while many people danced in the streets over the election of America's first black president, believing that equality had finally been recognized... another group has become more marginalized. Sad day, really.
|
That's quite rich coming from a kid that PM'ed Ethenal to convey your message to me that I am a "homophobe." I don't know who the blind hypocrite here is.
---------------
So far this thread has been very one-sided except for the efforts of a few.
I have no problem with gays and their lifestyle. But gay marriage is not just an issue that affects only gays. It asks cooperation from the majority by urging them to change their value system. Excuse me? What did you say?
That's ain't gonna happen so easily.
The reason? Not that the majority is being oppressive. It's far from that. I don't think it is appropriate to suggest that this is a case where a certain majority is oppressing the minority. It is also not too fair to suggest that this issue is comparable to the issue of women voters and Blacks.
This issue goes right into the fundamental concept of human life for the past thousands of years.
Given the huge numbers of the general religious population in the US, it would be an uphill struggle for homosexuals to gain "acceptance" by a group of people who have an entirely different value system. While it may seem that this majority is trying to preserve the integrity of their value system by denying others their right to practice their own, so small and tightly packed is the society that the change demanded is too great and fundamental that they simply cannot cooperate.
If you think this is the majority oppressing a minority, I would say it is merely a false illusion. It is more the case of the majority reacting to the threat of eventual subjugation by a minority in the near future.
Christian parents want to impart Christian values to their kids. This applies to people of all faiths. When in the future (if gay marriages are "legalized"), their kid asks them why one of his friends has 2 dads or 2 moms, what the heck are they going to say? You have got to be quite bigoted and indifferent if you do not see the conflict of ideals there.
This is one of the core reasons why we resist gay marriage.
Saying "boooo religion" is not a good approach to solve the problem. Telling us to "grow up" is not going to solve the issue. Calling us "backward thinking dead brains" is not going to solve the issue.
Only the most hardcore activitists go and "impose" their view that homosexuality is wrong. I believe they should save their breath for other useful purposes. But the majority that are anti-gay marriage could care less about the sexual activities and lifestyles of adults of the same sex. They have other genuine reasons as stated above. If the majority was really oppressing the minority, ALL of them would be going around saying homosexuality is wrong.
Sure it is inferred but they do not want to impose anything...they just will not cooperate with gay marriage and amend their lifestyle to accept it because it severely compromises their value system.
I probably won't cooperate either. I could care less if you lived right next to my house and played with a dick the night before but then when you bring your kid along with his other dad to the bustop in the morning, I don't want to be anywhere nearby with MY kid. I know you would say I am a "blowhard" and "intolerant" but then again, I believe in my Creator and the rules set forth. I would most probably try to find a place where similar thinking people like me live...perhaps I will move down South.
I could give a thousand more examples where the conflict of ideals would come up.
And this is exactly what those who voted for Prop 8 fear could happen in the future regardless of where they live...of course while many voted because they believe homosexuality to be downright wrong, my above reasons is also a a cause for it.
Not a women voter issue, not anywhere close to being close to the racism suffered by Blacks, this is something deep but I think this issue will be resolved like the above issues in the decades to come as the religious population wears thin with each incoming generation and the liberal trend continues to spiral upwards.
In an era where the terms "homophobe" and "homohpobia" is freely and unjustly and stupidly applied to anyone who is not pro-homosexuality without respect to their values and religion, expect more opposition as you try to forcibly change the value system of the majority.
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #358215 is a reply to message #358213] |
Tue, 11 November 2008 21:22 |
|
nikki6ixx
Messages: 2545
Registered: August 2007
Karma: 0
|
General (2 Stars) |
|
|
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
I have no problem with gays and their lifestyle.
|
Suuuure you don't, because...
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
I probably won't cooperate either. I could care less if you lived right next to my house and played with a dick the night before but then when you bring your kid along with his other dad to the bustop in the morning, I don't want to be anywhere nearby with MY kid. I know you would say I am a "blowhard" and "intolerant" but then again, I believe in my Creator and the rules set forth. I would most probably try to find a place where similar thinking people like me live...perhaps I will move down South.
|
I find that very offensive, and I'm not even gay. That's an affront to every gay person out there.
Are you implying the kid is going to be raised 'improperly' ? Sounds like it to me. In fact, it'll be you who's crippling your child, as you teach them to hate.
By the way, I'm sure you stand next to some neighbours at the bus stop who get up to some pretty freaky shit when the curtains are down. Does that mean that they're bad influences on their children, and yours?
| pawkyfox wrote on Tue, 11 November 2008 21:09 |
Given the huge numbers of the general religious population in the US, it would be an uphill struggle for homosexuals to gain "acceptance" by a group of people who have an entirely different value system.
|
What 'value system' is that? I'm pretty sure most gay people share the same 'values' as the rest of us; hard work, equality, honesty, civic duty, love of freedom, etc.
Or wait, do you mean the 'values' in the Bible?
Oh, by the way. It's funny you think I'm some right-wing, conservative nutjob, and yet it's you who opposes something so tiny as gay marriage; as well as believing gay people will corrupt the country, and your children.
Renegade:
| Aircraftkiller wrote on Fri, 10 January 2014 16:56 |
The only game where everyone competes to be an e-janitor.
|
[Updated on: Tue, 11 November 2008 21:58] Report message to a moderator |
|
|
|
|
|
| Re: prop 8 california passes [message #358220 is a reply to message #357476] |
Tue, 11 November 2008 21:47 |
|
|
*repeatedly hits head against wall*
Are you SERIOUS, pawky? So you're defending (unintentional) oppression because of society's stubbornness to change? That is fucking stupid.
Who gives a shit if some kid questions why his/her friend has two moms/dads? That's not an actual reason to bitch about it.
Compromising their value system? I haven't had to compromise any of my values since I became a libertarian. I don't need society to follow my views for me to live my life the way I see fit.
You must be pretty fucking self-important to require the government to regulate morality just for your own self-assurance.
Libertarian Party | The King's Throne | The Soda Shop
|
|
|
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Tue May 07 22:24:13 MST 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01173 seconds
|
Search
Help
Members
Register
Login
Home
