U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 08-30-2013, 03:19 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,211 posts, read 13,360,463 times
Reputation: 9842

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rob123 View Post
That is mean. Now he's gotta go try to find some other baseless argument. Or he could do what OP did and wait a day or two and then post his same "points."
I'm sorry to rain on someones parade with facts, but oh well.
Rate this post positively

 
Old 08-30-2013, 04:47 PM
 
Location: Victoria, BC.
33,303 posts, read 35,682,210 times
Reputation: 13728
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Not.That.Simple.
If you're compelled to pay taxes that support special benefits to married parties, but you disapprove of said marriages, isn't that injustice?
What special benefits? Oh you must mean the "special benefits that every married couple gets.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Tulsa, OK
2,572 posts, read 4,036,166 times
Reputation: 2423

Missouri Pastor Phil Snider Fiery Controversial Anti Gay Rights Speech Has Surprise Ending PWND - YouTube

You need to watch the whole video, it has a very interesting twist at the end.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 07:41 PM
 
1,111 posts, read 1,266,640 times
Reputation: 833
Great video, thanks for sharing that.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 07:49 PM
 
7,359 posts, read 5,258,291 times
Reputation: 3138
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
Don't agree with same sex marriage? Then don't have a same-sex marriage.

How. Simple. Is. That?
Don't agree with discriminating against blacks? Then don't discriminate against blacks.

How. Simple. Is. That?

That infantile argument can be used to support anything.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 08:02 PM
 
8,289 posts, read 13,032,189 times
Reputation: 5011
Quote:
Originally Posted by okie1962 View Post

Missouri Pastor Phil Snider Fiery Controversial Anti Gay Rights Speech Has Surprise Ending PWND - YouTube

You need to watch the whole video, it has a very interesting twist at the end.
Thank you for posting this . People who aren't Gay don't know what they go through. When you have teenagers committing suicide over being gay? It's another form of bullying and adults should be held liable as well.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 08:03 PM
 
Location: I live wherever I am.
1,935 posts, read 4,524,476 times
Reputation: 3305
Quote:
Originally Posted by T-Rob123 View Post
I hope I'm off base, but if I'm not, OP please seek help, do not victimize a child (or an animal for that matter).
Don't worry your pretty little head. I'm happily married, to a full-fledged legal adult close to my age who satisfies my needs to an extent that even were we not married, I'd still not need anyone else in my life... adult or otherwise. On top of that, I've never committed any crime of any kind and if I haven't done so yet, it seems rather unlikely that I'm going to start when I'm in my mid freaking thirties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Not.That.Simple.
If you're compelled to pay taxes that support special benefits to married parties, but you disapprove of said marriages, isn't that injustice?
Finally, someone who understands. Ahhhhh... like a breath of fresh air while standing in the middle of a landfill.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
The problem I see with the frequent "where do you draw the line" argument is that there is no particular reason to draw that line at homosexual marriage. The where do you draw the line thing is just as good as any other subject for a philosophical discussion. But used as an argument in a debate, it's relatively worthless. Because using it as a reason to ban gay marriage begs the question of why heterosexual marriage is allowed either. If you're going to use a slippery slope type argument, what makes the argument only effective in drawing it at homosexual marriage? Why not ban all marriage? Or simply draw the line at banning all marriage except that between two unrelated adults? What makes homosexual marriage the proper spot to draw that line?
This is the exact reason why I state that society cannot function without an unchangeable "absolute standard" upon which that society is founded. This is a simple concept. Houses and other buildings have to have a solid, unmovable foundation upon which they are constructed - the slightest change or shift in the foundation usually makes for huge problems in the building.

The Constitution doesn't qualify as an absolute standard, as it is changeable. Without any kind of absolute standard, there's no absolute right nor any absolute wrong. When everything is relative, people's rights (or at least their perception thereof) are guaranteed to be trampled regularly. Think about it like this. Say every car's speedometer were calibrated differently. "Speed limit 55" would result in some people speeding and some people going pitifully slowly, even if their speedometers said 55. The speeders would be dangerous and likely to injure others or damage property... the slow drivers would drive those stuck behind them crazy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidkaos2 View Post
You will never get tolerance of your views from a liberal. Liberals aren't tolerant in any way whatsoever. They simply use the word "tolerance" as a synonym for liberalism. To be tolerant is to agree with everything that liberals agree with. Tolerant and liberal are synonyms and intolerant and conservative are synonyms. You can go crazy expecting the dictionary definition of tolerance from liberals and expecting them to actually live up to their own principles. It's just easier to realize that when a liberal says tolerance they don't mean what you and I mean by tolerance, they simply define tolerance as "agreement with my views". It's a real life example of Orwell's doublespeak - you call something exactly the opposite of what it is. The Ministry of Peace was responsible for armed conflict. The Ministry of Truth was responsible for disseminating propaganda. Liberal tolerance is the same idea. By terming their views as tolerance, they are therfore free to oppose everything they disagree with because by definition everything they disagree with becomes intolerance.
I agree completely. But I figured I'd try my luck anyway. *fail*

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
1) Only if they agree to get sterilized due to the genetic problems with having children.
A lot of people on this thread have talked about the genetic issues with having children. Yet, that doesn't stop people with genetic issues from getting married to non-relatives of the opposite gender, and having children. For example, one of the most common issues with children of close relatives is "strabismus", where the eyes point outward and only one is ever looking straight at you at any one time. However, if someone with strabismus wants to get married using conventional means, despite the obvious chance of that genetic condition transferring to his/her children, nobody stops them. Apparently, people don't care THAT much about avoiding transferring genetic conditions. Every time anyone dares to mention "eugenics", that person is equated with a genocidal maniac.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Casper in Dallas View Post
3) No children cannot agree to contracts and that is what marriage is a Marriage Contract.
Says who?

I'm going to try one of my questions again, because, as expected, it was dodged and not answered because the answer would likely agonize those who continually talk about this. Let's take a state where the age of consent is 16. This means a person can get married without approval from any other adult authority figures, at age 16. Let's now take a hypothetical person who gets married on his/her 16th birthday.

What is the functional difference between that person's ability to consent to a contract on his/her 16th birthday, and that person's ability to consent to a contract the day before his/her 16th birthday?

I say that the person's ability to do so at age 15 years and 364 days is so close to his/her ability to do so at age 16 years and 0 days that they may as well be called the same. Therefore, since that singlehandedly defeats the argument that "it's all about age", it should be all about intellectual capacity and maturity... meaning that ability to consent should be determined by an examination when the person is under a certain age (such as 21), and it should not be all about age.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 08:47 PM
 
17,844 posts, read 13,822,356 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by jetgraphics View Post
Not.That.Simple.
If you're compelled to pay taxes that support special benefits to married parties, but you disapprove of said marriages, isn't that injustice?
You didn't think that through very well did you.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 08:50 PM
 
Location: Middle of nowhere
24,211 posts, read 13,360,463 times
Reputation: 9842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jaymax View Post
You didn't think that through very well did you.
Nope.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 08-30-2013, 08:54 PM
 
Location: Deep Dirty South
5,190 posts, read 5,062,414 times
Reputation: 3860
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oldhag1 View Post
Not that there aren't multiple threads out there on this....

1) Should people who wish to marry their close relatives (sisters, brothers, children, parents, first cousins, etc) be permitted to do so? Yes
2) Should people who wish to marry multiple spouses be permitted to do so? Yes
3) Should people who wish to marry "children" be permitted to do so? No, children can't consent.
4) Should people who wish to marry animals be permitted to do so? No, animals can't consent.
All 100% correct.

And yes, this exact same thing has been brought up here many times and about 86 bajillion times on other forums. Ho hum.

It's a good time to once again point out the fact that there is not one single reason to oppose same sex marriage that doesn't arise from hate, fear, bigotry, ignorance, or some combination of those things.

Not one single reason.

To preclude same sex couples from marrying based solely on their gender is the very definition of bigotry and dscrimination.
Rate this post positively
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.


Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:20 AM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top