Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm trying to get this whole things straight. Conservative Christians have spent decades doing everything in their power to dehumanize gay people and have also done everything in their power to make sure that gays are unable to achieve political equality. But now that the tables have turned, they're screaming bloody murder and claiming that people are not tolerant of them?? It's like a bully on a playground that finally got their nose punched and screams to the principal that it's the other kid who started the fight. There is so much irony here that I don't even know where to start.
Two kinds of kids are at the front of the line to get beat up in junior high school.
One is the gay kid and the other one carries a Bible.
It has always been that way.
It has never been one kid or the other.
They both get rejected and bullied.
Later in life, these individuals find they can address the way people like them are treated.
For homosexuals, this means trying to gain acceptance for their sexual orientation, practices and relationships.
For Christians, this is largely a matter of insisting that rights guaranteed to all (not to be confused with made up rights liberals decide are implied by the Constitution every time they want something) are also provided to them.
For people who hate Christians, or perhaps hate both gays and Christians, this is an opportunity to pit one despised group against the other in a way never imagined in middle school.
Enter liberals.
With public support for traditional liberal causes like abortion on demand, affirmative action, unionism and radical feminism all on the wane, a new cause is needed in order to create the appearance that liberals are still the good guys and Christians still the villains.
For the gay kid who got beat up, mocked and excluded, same-sex marriage promises state intervention on their behalf.
After all, why work so hard to convince people that you are not abnormal when you can use the power of the state to redefine what normal is?
For the Christian kid who also got beat up, mocked and excluded,..well, since supporters of same-sex marriage are generally hostile to Christianity, not much will change.
For liberals, the opportunity to once again smear Christians supports ongoing efforts to silence critics of failed liberal policies.
For Muslims who support the death penalty for homosexuals, nothing will change since, for liberals, this has never been about the way homosexuals are treated.
Liberals will continue to use "Islamophobe" in the same sentence with "homophobe" in what appears to be a logical inconsistency, but this is only because what liberals perceive to be the enemy of their enemy is their friend even if one of their friends might kill the other.
Both of you are suffering under the delusion that government has any buisness making any laws about marriage....gay , straight or otherwise.
It's amusing that you'd bring up delusion, given that government has been making laws about marriage since before there was a United States. Your delusion to the contrary blinds you to the reality. If you cannot base your comments on the reality around you, please understand that your comments are rendered worthless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
The proof is the rejection of civil unions that are equal in every way except that they are not called "marriage".
Putting aside the determination of the highest court in the land, which has determined, definitively, that separate facilities are inherently unequal, your defense here is that you insist that your petty concerns about semantics should be lorded over society. Honest and intelligent people on both sides of the issue recognize the prodigious time and money that would be required to change over a thousand federal laws and an order of magnitude more state and local laws, in what is probably hundreds of different jurisdictions. It would be ridiculously unwarranted to grant you power over society to incur pointless cost to serve your semantic persnicketiness. If you want to waste your time and money, that's your affair. Don't presume that society should incur the costs associated with your petty concerns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Anyone opposing civil unions with all the same benefits as marriage?
Nothing discredits your perspective more than your trying to assert that your selfish desire to incur pointless cost onto society, and force the federal government, all state and territorial governments, and a bevvy of municipal governments, to spend time and money changing thousands of laws to meet your petty demand, when the same effect - the same effect, if your words have any truth to them - can be brought about through a few, relatively efficient, judicial and legislative actions.
Unless, of course, your perspective is devoid of honor and integrity, and instead of meaning what you say, you secretly prefer your approach because you figure that it would be impracticable to change the thousands upon thousands of laws, all over the country, in any reasonable amount of time, and that you really aren't advocating civil unions "equal in every way" to marriage today, but instead just trying to evade accountability for thoroughly offensive perspectives through lying about what you really believe.
It's amusing that you'd bring up delusion, given that government has been making laws about marriage since before there was a United States. Your delusion to the contrary blinds you to the reality. If you cannot base your comments on the reality around you, please understand that your comments are rendered worthless.
It's a thorough repudiation of the vacuous nonsense the poster posted.
I'm glad to help clear up your confusion about that.
And don't miss my replies to your comments, above. If you thought that you could somehow evade taking responsibility for all you wrote, with a pity evasion, you're in for a big surprise.
Meh, no one cares how you think or act. Just don't tell others how to think or act.
Of course I understand that in the religious right crowd, being told that others will now enjoy the same rights as you doconstitutes being "told how to think and act." They're kind of like toddlers that way. If everyone has to share -- Wahhhhhhh! I want my toys back!!!!!
Well Commander don't-tell-people-how-to-think-or-act, pardon my cognitive dissonance if I believe what is being shared is the truth and a lie and that if they are merged, together they become a lie.
The lie is that homosexuality is essentially the same thing as heterosexuality and a definition of marriage provided by the state that equates homosexuality with heterosexuality in law is not a government sponsored double-think head**** straight out of George Orwell's "1984".
So thanks for not telling me how to think Charrington.
Both of you are suffering under the delusion that government has any buisness making any laws about marriage....gay , straight or otherwise.
This is the real issue, get the government out of the marrige regulation business and both your arguments become moot.
Because quite frankly, who you choose to marry is none of my business, and none of the government's business.
Whether or not I personally agree with your sexuality is irrelevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
OK, I'm good with that.
How about you bUU?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
It's amusing that you'd bring up delusion, given that government has been making laws about marriage since before there was a United States. Your delusion to the contrary blinds you to the reality. If you cannot base your comments on the reality around you, please understand that your comments are rendered worthless.
Putting aside the determination of the highest court in the land, which has determined, definitively, that separate facilities are inherently unequal, your defense here is that you insist that your petty concerns about semantics should be lorded over society. Honest and intelligent people on both sides of the issue recognize the prodigious time and money that would be required to change over a thousand federal laws and an order of magnitude more state and local laws, in what is probably hundreds of different jurisdictions. It would be ridiculously unwarranted to grant you power over society to incur pointless cost to serve your semantic persnicketiness. If you want to waste your time and money, that's your affair. Don't presume that society should incur the costs associated with your petty concerns.
Nothing discredits your perspective more than your trying to assert that your selfish desire to incur pointless cost onto society, and force the federal government, all state and territorial governments, and a bevvy of municipal governments, to spend time and money changing thousands of laws to meet your petty demand, when the same effect - the same effect, if your words have any truth to them - can be brought about through a few, relatively efficient, judicial and legislative actions.
Unless, of course, your perspective is devoid of honor and integrity, and instead of meaning what you say, you secretly prefer your approach because you figure that it would be impracticable to change the thousands upon thousands of laws, all over the country, in any reasonable amount of time, and that you really aren't advocating civil unions "equal in every way" to marriage today, but instead just trying to evade accountability for thoroughly offensive perspectives through lying about what you really believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
So, is that a no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bUU
It's a thorough repudiation of the vacuous nonsense the poster posted.
I'm glad to help clear up your confusion about that.
And don't miss my replies to your comments, above. If you thought that you could somehow evade taking responsibility for all you wrote, with a pity evasion, you're in for a big surprise.
I was agreeing with Dooleys1300 that government should not be involved in defining marriage one why or the other.
I was also agreeing with liberals that what people do in the bedroom isn't the government's business.
For the state to define our sexual relationships by creating marriage laws that make one sort of sexual relationship acceptable and another not, or that equates one with the other while excluding still others as would be the case with same-sex marriage, is something or government has no business doing.
I was agreeing with Dooleys1300 that government should not be involved in defining marriage one why or the other. I was also agreeing with liberals that what people do in the bedroom isn't the government's business.
So you are saying you want to wipe away the silliness you posted in #244 and #245 - get a free pass to post such comments without having to be held accountable for your comments.
Tough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
For the state to define our sexual relationships by creating marriage laws that make one sort of sexual relationship acceptable and another not, or that equates one with the other while excluding still others as would be the case with same-sex marriage, is something or government has no business doing. Wouldn't you agree?
" I have to swear allegiance to your deity when I say the pledge."
If you are talking about the Pledge of Allegiance, NO, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO!
YOU have the absolute freedom to leave the phrase "under God" out when YOU say the Pledge. YOU have the absolute freedom to NOT EVEN SAY THE PLEDGE AT ALL, EVER, if YOU so desire!
YOU don't even have to swear on the Bible in a court of law if you don't want to! In fact, technically it just might be perjury if you did so, since you don't believe in the Bible or God anyway!
Hey, guess what! You have the absolute freedom to NOT ENTER INTO A GAY MARRIAGE, EVER, if YOU so desire!
So you are saying you want to wipe away the silliness you posted in #244 and #245 - get a free pass to post such comments without having to be held accountable for your comments.
My plan was to not **** with existing marriage laws in the first place, but since that is something homosexuals won't accept, we'll have to find an honest alternative.
Calling me a bigot is repudiation?
Yeah, I saw those excuse laden word salads you posted while you were looking for the exit.
Oh, it would be just toooooo hard to change all those laws all over the country, so we'll just have to settle for what we wanted in the first place without wondering why it absolutely positively has to be called 'marriage'.
Absolute horse ****!
You've proven yourself to be a liar.
Changing one word doesn't require changing laws all over the country.
That's your sorry excuse because you know without that word, your ruse, your attempt to surreptitiously use the power of the state to equate same-sex unions with marriage between a man and a woman fails.
Well Commander don't-tell-people-how-to-think-or-act, pardon my cognitive dissonance if I believe what is being shared is the truth and a lie and that if they are merged, together they become a lie.
The lie is that homosexuality is essentially the same thing as heterosexuality and a definition of marriage provided by the state that equates homosexuality with heterosexuality in law is not a government sponsored double-think head**** straight out of George Orwell's "1984".
So thanks for not telling me how to think Charrington.
Um, thanks for proving my point. Whatever it is that you posted in something only faintly resembling English … you're completely allowed to think it, even though somewhere today, a gay couple is getting married. Isn't it awesome how that works?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
