[quote]sufiandy wrote:
My mistake I misread that. Didn’t you mention something in a thread a while back about leaving teaching or was it just something you were considering until this came along?[/quote]
I have had enough of teaching in American universities, but the attitudes and work ethic of the students I met in Norway seem more along the lines of what I expect of my students so I decided to continue teaching. The classes I teach will be limited until I learn Norwegian, though.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
In a few years, someone will come on PWI to explain us that :
-the “FurNations” (sic) deserve equality, and should not be discriminated.
-that bestiality is “not a pathology” but “a lifestyle”
-that “pets are people too”
-that “specie” is “culturally determined”, and not essential, just like gender.
-that allowing people to marry animals is just the next step toward a “post-anthropocentric world”. Just like the abolition of slavery back in the day was a naturel step toward a “post-ethnocentric world”.
-that opposing it is a symptom of specist bigotry.
-that social conservative are inconsistent because they are against abortion but against animal-marriage, which is a great and perfectly safe kind of birth control.
You may think it’s a slippery slope fallacy but … i did NOT invent such a phraseology. It already exists.
[/quote]
All analogies limp.
Sexmachine is right that gay marriage and black voting rights are not analogous.
Neither are homosexuality ans bestiality.[/quote]
I’m not suggesting that gays are themselves analogous to beastophiles. I’m saying if you want to change - i.e. destroy, the institution of marriage then where do you draw the line? With the rapid onset of the “progressive” agenda anything is possible. Polyamorous groups will argue they are being denied the same “rights” granted to gays. Beastophiles will argue they are being denied the same “rights” granted to the polyamorous. Pedophiles will argue they are being denied the same rights as beastophiles. There’s already evidence of this - e.g. the Man Boy Love Association piggy backing on the gay rights lobbies back in the 70’s. Polyamorous groups demanding that their rights are recognised just as gay rights are being. That’s the slippery slope. And even if there were no slippery slope, there are a thousand reasons to preserve and maintain traditional marriage. Many of them having been expressed in this thread.[/quote]
The polygamy argument is legitimate, but bestiality and pedophilia can be discounted immediately because sex without consent is rape.[/quote]
Only a reactionary old white dude would argue that kids and animals can’t consent. Get with the times fella. /sarcasm
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]Christine wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Sorry for hijack, but where in Norway are you moving to if you dont mind me asking?
[/quote]
Trondheim. I was offered a position at NTNU and the salary plus budget I will have access to for my research are better then anything that I have been offered anywhere else, plus I can teach in English until I learn Norwegian.
[/quote]
Teach english… In addition to physics right?[/quote]
Teach in English. I assume he meant physics[/quote]
Yes, I will continue to teach physics. Just in English until I pick up the language.[/quote]
I know nothing about the Norwegian language but I have read that it is one of the easier languages for English speakers to learn.
Interesting. Congratulations.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]kamui wrote:
In a few years, someone will come on PWI to explain us that :
-the “FurNations” (sic) deserve equality, and should not be discriminated.
-that bestiality is “not a pathology” but “a lifestyle”
-that “pets are people too”
-that “specie” is “culturally determined”, and not essential, just like gender.
-that allowing people to marry animals is just the next step toward a “post-anthropocentric world”. Just like the abolition of slavery back in the day was a naturel step toward a “post-ethnocentric world”.
-that opposing it is a symptom of specist bigotry.
-that social conservative are inconsistent because they are against abortion but against animal-marriage, which is a great and perfectly safe kind of birth control.
You may think it’s a slippery slope fallacy but … i did NOT invent such a phraseology. It already exists.
[/quote]
All analogies limp.
Sexmachine is right that gay marriage and black voting rights are not analogous.
Neither are homosexuality ans bestiality.[/quote]
I’m not suggesting that gays are themselves analogous to beastophiles. I’m saying if you want to change - i.e. destroy, the institution of marriage then where do you draw the line? With the rapid onset of the “progressive” agenda anything is possible. Polyamorous groups will argue they are being denied the same “rights” granted to gays. Beastophiles will argue they are being denied the same “rights” granted to the polyamorous. Pedophiles will argue they are being denied the same rights as beastophiles. There’s already evidence of this - e.g. the Man Boy Love Association piggy backing on the gay rights lobbies back in the 70’s. Polyamorous groups demanding that their rights are recognised just as gay rights are being. That’s the slippery slope. And even if there were no slippery slope, there are a thousand reasons to preserve and maintain traditional marriage. Many of them having been expressed in this thread.[/quote]
The polygamy argument is legitimate, but bestiality and pedophilia can be discounted immediately because sex without consent is rape.[/quote]
Yes. For now.
But the BDSM community will soon demand the recognition of their right to consensually (or maybe contractually ?) renounce their rights to consent. Which will lead to some funny legal debates.
They will ask the right to be enslaved, ironically using “the abolition of slavery” argument to do it.
The circle will be complete.
And then…who knows ?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I have a question for all the pro-gay “marriage” advocates posting here. Why is it so important to you guys? Some of you seem to have some sort of fixation on the issue. Aren’t there more important things to discuss? I mean seriously, what is it with gay “marriage” that is of such pressing concern?[/quote]
It’s easily debated because everyone has a strong yes or no opinion on the issue and most people don’t see the cons to their position. All the other important things there is no solution A and B to debate, there is solution A to Z all of which have their pros and cons. As far as importance most gay people and their friends will vote democrat without looking at other issues, this is easily 1% of the vote and when elections are this close wouldn’t it be nice to make an issue like this go away? And until its legal everywhere its not going away, this is not an issue people change their mind on as they get older. Sure there may be some new liberal ideas in the future I will totally disagree with and be an old man republican myself one day but gay marriage is not one of them.[/quote]
“Impossible is a word only to be found in the dictionary of fools.” - Bonaparte[/quote]
If that’s your response why did you even ask this question in the first place?[/quote]
I don’t see the connection. I asked why so many people seem to consider it an issue of paramount importance. I then gave my opinion that I don’t think it’s impossible to win the fight to maintain traditional marriage. Not sure how these relate to your question.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
This is a complete load of shit and part of the reason why your side is losing and will continue to lose. Because people aren’t fucking advocating for pedophiles or anything like that in this cause.
[/quote]
You need to do some history learn’n my friend. McGovern did exactly this. He supported the Man Boy Love Association’s demands to lower the age of homosexual consent to 12. To 12! And that was 40 years ago!
Ah no, it’s quite obvious that was a throw away line and an attempt at humour.
Good grief! You’d have to be autistic to miss the fact that I was joking. No, I’m not concerned about men marrying sardines or door knobs as I firmly believe that will never happen.
I am part of the younger generation(relatively). I guess you thought I was an old white dude or something?
Well you guys are in for one hell of a fight I can tell you that. There is no way I’m going to lie down for this crap. I’m not going to let a bunch of “progressive” goons alter my fundamental beliefs.[/quote]
Well there you go. George McGovern did something 40 years ago so that is entirely relevant. I assume since the Westboro Baptist Church is anti-gay marriage and you are anti-gay marriage you cheer when soldiers die because that’s God’s way of punishing us for gays right. It’s cool to cherry pick what wackos do for your side isn’t it now?
You may be part of the younger generation, but you’re in the minority. I don’t care if your an old white dude, young black dude, or whatever other demographic you fit. Look at the polling. Millenials are at 63 percent. Gen Xers are at 52 and rising. That leaves the very old and the baby boomers. Even the baby boomers are at 41 percent and up from 32 percent in 2009.
And it isn’t just a progressive thing. Even conservatives are starting to see the writing on the wall.
"Gay marriage is often lumped together with abortion, but in reality, it is a very different issue. For one thing, while there is no specifically conservative case for abortion, there is a conservative case for gay marriage. For another, while popular opinion is turning away from abortion, it is rapidly falling in line behind gay marriage. In my view, there is little reason to stand in front of this particular locomotive. It is true that the family is in crisis and our civilization may well be going down the drain, but not because of gay marriage; rather, because close to half of all American children are now born to unmarried women.
Republicans can take a big-tent approach to gay marriage by emphasizing process. If the time comes when a majority of people want to recognize gay marriage, so be it. At the end of the day, voters can define marriage in whatever way they choose. Republicans, meanwhile, can unite in opposing any resolution of the issue by judicial fiat. We can say: some Republicans are for gay marriage, some Republicans are against it; but we all agree that the issue should be resolved by the people and their elected representatives."
So you have your own side fighting the Supreme Court battle and you have people acknowledging the fight is a loser (locomotive). You better be prepared to fight hard, because your soldiers are diminishing quite quickly. It won’t happen overnight, these type of things never do, but the writing is already on the wall, just like it was before the election. Unless again you guys want to play but the numbers are all wrong.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
I asked why so many people seem to consider it an issue of paramount importance.
[/quote]
Its just easy to have an opinion on making it easier to get sucked into a debate. I really don’t think most who debate this think its that important. Lack of importance has nothing to do with issues passing to law though.
[quote]H factor wrote:
Well there you go. George McGovern did something 40 years ago so that is entirely relevant. I assume since the Westboro Baptist Church is anti-gay marriage and you are anti-gay marriage you cheer when soldiers die because that’s God’s way of punishing us for gays right. It’s cool to cherry pick what wackos do for your side isn’t it now?
[/quote]
Ridiculous analogy. McGovern was the fucking Democratic Presidential nominee! Not some obscure whackjob. He was someone who garnered a significant proportion of the vote in a Presidential election.
If I’m a minority then I DEMAND pandering to, special treatment, preferential legislative action on my behalf and a truckload of government cheese.
RINOs and establishment Republicans. Not conservatives.
You’re rambling. Abortion is not ‘lumped together’ with gay marriage and there is NO conservative case for gay marriage and I’m not interested in hearing you, pittbull or anyone else try to establish one.
How about sticking to your principles? I’m not going to jump on the gay marriage bandwagon just because it might gather some votes from people who would be considered interlopers in the GOP by any serious conservative.
Oh great. And I suppose they’ll all be adopted by gays who will solve the problem. Please, let’s just agree to disagree.
Like I said, they’re in for a hell of fight; every step of the way.
[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:
[quote]florelius wrote:
Sorry for hijack, but where in Norway are you moving to if you dont mind me asking?
[/quote]
Trondheim. I was offered a position at NTNU and the salary plus budget I will have access to for my research are better then anything that I have been offered anywhere else, plus I can teach in English until I learn Norwegian.
[/quote]
Okay I see. I have actually never been to Trondheim, but heard it is a nice place and troendere( people from Trondheim and the county troendelag ) really know their shit when it comes to drinking and have a good time( or so the steriotype says ), so if your into a good time including alcohol, you found the right place.
You will probably not have to much difficulty learning Norwegian considering it is rather close to english and is in its own right a very simple language with a simple grammatical structure. Only hard thing to nail might be the accent, but aslong as people understand you fine it doesnt matter.
Hope you will enjoy your time in our country 
That’s fine sexmachine, I won’t doubt that it is going to be quite a fight. I’ll maintain that the writing is already on the wall though. The people who largely oppose gay marriage are going to be the ones dying off. The biggest opposition group is people born in the 40’s or earliers. Like I said the baby boomers have taken a big turn away from opposition though they remain opposed. And I can’t see ANYTHING turning the tide from gen Xers and younger. I live in a very conservative area of Kansas and I can tell you even the kids of very conservative Republicans in the school I’m near really don’t care about this issue. Heck it was in the school newspaper two years ago and most of them were unopposed. And this is an area where (I haven’t looked) Obama might get something like 2% of the vote in the county).
RINOs or not you’re going to have a big fight in the Republican party on where to go from here. Some voices are already calling on gay marriage. This doesn’t appear to be something that Republicans are going to continue to take a hard line stance on over the next 15 years. And even if they do unless the polling drastically starts going the other way hard, they may have already lost the fight for public opinion. If the Supreme Court case goes the way I think it likely will I think that just speeds up the inevitable.
I could definitely be wrong, but I think too much is out there to say otherwise.
[quote]H factor wrote:
That’s fine sexmachine, I won’t doubt that it is going to be quite a fight. I’ll maintain that the writing is already on the wall though. The people who largely oppose gay marriage are going to be the ones dying off. The biggest opposition group is people born in the 40’s or earliers. Like I said the baby boomers have taken a big turn away from opposition though they remain opposed. And I can’t see ANYTHING turning the tide from gen Xers and younger.
RINOs or not you’re going to have a big fight in the Republican party on where to go from here. Some voices are already calling on gay marriage. This doesn’t appear to be something that Republicans are going to continue to take a hard line stance on over the next 15 years. And even if they do unless the polling drastically starts going the other way hard, they may have already lost the fight for public opinion. [/quote]
After four more years of Obama people will be ready to vote for a candidate to the right of Genghis Khan.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
That’s fine sexmachine, I won’t doubt that it is going to be quite a fight. I’ll maintain that the writing is already on the wall though. The people who largely oppose gay marriage are going to be the ones dying off. The biggest opposition group is people born in the 40’s or earliers. Like I said the baby boomers have taken a big turn away from opposition though they remain opposed. And I can’t see ANYTHING turning the tide from gen Xers and younger.
RINOs or not you’re going to have a big fight in the Republican party on where to go from here. Some voices are already calling on gay marriage. This doesn’t appear to be something that Republicans are going to continue to take a hard line stance on over the next 15 years. And even if they do unless the polling drastically starts going the other way hard, they may have already lost the fight for public opinion. [/quote]
After four more years of Obama people will be ready to vote for a candidate to the right of Genghis Khan.
[/quote]
Fiscally perhaps, but I expect the Republican party to loosen their views on some things I view as “losing” battles for them. Namely immigration and gay marriage. You’re already seeing a push on both of these by many right wingers as Republicans try to figure out what to do about the fact that they did so well with Independents and still lost. They have some serious soul searching to do.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
That’s fine sexmachine, I won’t doubt that it is going to be quite a fight. I’ll maintain that the writing is already on the wall though. The people who largely oppose gay marriage are going to be the ones dying off. The biggest opposition group is people born in the 40’s or earliers. Like I said the baby boomers have taken a big turn away from opposition though they remain opposed. And I can’t see ANYTHING turning the tide from gen Xers and younger.
RINOs or not you’re going to have a big fight in the Republican party on where to go from here. Some voices are already calling on gay marriage. This doesn’t appear to be something that Republicans are going to continue to take a hard line stance on over the next 15 years. And even if they do unless the polling drastically starts going the other way hard, they may have already lost the fight for public opinion. [/quote]
After four more years of Obama people will be ready to vote for a candidate to the right of Genghis Khan.
[/quote]
Fiscally perhaps, but I expect the Republican party to loosen their views on some things I view as “losing” battles for them. Namely immigration and gay marriage. You’re already seeing a push on both of these by many right wingers as Republicans try to figure out what to do about the fact that they did so well with Independents and still lost. They have some serious soul searching to do.
[/quote]
Immigration, maybe. Gay marriage, no. The GoP’s issue is a visible hostility to the welfare state. It’s the fiscal ‘conservatism’ (libertarianism, really) that scares the poop out of people. Most folks understand there’s a problem, but they don’t trust the party that is spitting out libertarian talking points on social programs to do no more than is necessary to preserve them.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
That’s fine sexmachine, I won’t doubt that it is going to be quite a fight. I’ll maintain that the writing is already on the wall though. The people who largely oppose gay marriage are going to be the ones dying off. The biggest opposition group is people born in the 40’s or earliers. Like I said the baby boomers have taken a big turn away from opposition though they remain opposed. And I can’t see ANYTHING turning the tide from gen Xers and younger.
RINOs or not you’re going to have a big fight in the Republican party on where to go from here. Some voices are already calling on gay marriage. This doesn’t appear to be something that Republicans are going to continue to take a hard line stance on over the next 15 years. And even if they do unless the polling drastically starts going the other way hard, they may have already lost the fight for public opinion. [/quote]
After four more years of Obama people will be ready to vote for a candidate to the right of Genghis Khan.
[/quote]
Fiscally perhaps, but I expect the Republican party to loosen their views on some things I view as “losing” battles for them. Namely immigration and gay marriage. You’re already seeing a push on both of these by many right wingers as Republicans try to figure out what to do about the fact that they did so well with Independents and still lost. They have some serious soul searching to do.
[/quote]
Immigration, maybe. Gay marriage, no. The GoP’s issue is a visible hostility to the welfare state. It’s the fiscal ‘conservatism’ (libertarianism, really) that scares the poop out of people. Most folks understand there’s a problem, but they don’t trust the party that is spitting out libertarian talking points on social programs to do no more than is necessary to preserve them.[/quote]
We shall see. You can see that the idea is definitely out there if you look from the right side. All that said I don’t think it really matters when the GOP comes out for gay marriage or against it. It will be a while, but the public polling is what’s really striking. It’s on a very steady climb and gay marriage just won for the first time at the ballots. The polling numbers look better almost every single time they poll it. I definitely don’t think if a major party is endorsing it and STILL winning the presidency after doing so that one can call it a fad with a straight face.
Again, we shall see. But I would feel very confident betting on what happened last Tuesday picking up and rolling, not going the other way around in terms of gay marriage. I’d take that bet in no time.
It all makes sense now: Gay marriage should be legalized on the SAME day as marijuana - it will make perfect biblical sense. Leviticus 20:13 “A man who lays with another man shall be stoned”. Our interpretation has been wrong for all these years! LOL
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It all makes sense now: Gay marriage should be legalized on the SAME day as marijuana - it will make perfect biblical sense. Leviticus 20:13 “A man who lays with another man shall be stoned”. Our interpretation has been wrong for all these years! LOL[/quote]
+1
[quote]angry chicken wrote:
It all makes sense now: Gay marriage should be legalized on the SAME day as marijuana - it will make perfect biblical sense. Leviticus 20:13 “A man who lays with another man shall be stoned”. Our interpretation has been wrong for all these years! LOL[/quote]
I, for one, giggled.
So, we have the HHS mandate which tries to force religious institutions to provide contraception coverage.
Now, marriage laws. And later, employment laws.
So, the federal government should force religious institutions to employ homosexuals. And, whatever benefits extend to spouses, must extend to the spouses of homosexuals.
Interesting.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, we have the HHS mandate which tries to force religious institutions to provide contraception coverage.
Now, marriage laws. And later, employment laws.
So, the federal government should force religious institutions to employ homosexuals. And, whatever benefits extend to spouses, must extend to the spouses of homosexuals.
Interesting.[/quote]
Do you guys really not employ them already?
[quote]sufiandy wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, we have the HHS mandate which tries to force religious institutions to provide contraception coverage.
Now, marriage laws. And later, employment laws.
So, the federal government should force religious institutions to employ homosexuals. And, whatever benefits extend to spouses, must extend to the spouses of homosexuals.
Interesting.[/quote]
Do you guys really not employ them already?[/quote]
You beat me to it! Look at all the PEDOPHILES the Catholic Church employs and keeps on transferring around and covering up for. With a track record like that, you’d think they wouldn’t have any problem at all paying the health insurance for a few “normal” homosexuals. I mean surely a PEDOPHILE homosexual is worse than a “normal” homosexual… AMIRIGHT?
Or is the problem ACKNOWLEDGING that point PUBLICLY? Sounds a bit hypocritical, no?