The restriction on gay marriage is an unneeded and in my opinion, unethical abuse of authority. If authority cannot be shown to be necessary or helpful, then we ought not have to be subjected to it. Disallowing gay marriage is not necessary or helpful, and so a bunch of bigots should not be able to infringe on the rights of others just because they don’t happen to like what they’re doing in their own homes.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Sloth wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Gays are today’s black people- it’s ok to discriminate and not give them the same legal rights because they’re different and the Bible says they’re evil.
And PR- I know you’re kind of a dim bulb, but I would steer away from making massive generalizations about what rights gays do and don’t care about.
And being gay has nothing to do with the age of consent being lowered- those are two separate issues.
It’s nice to see such a hateful feeling on T-Nation towards the gays. Really fits in with the “stupid fucking meathead” motif. You guys should be proud.
What legal rights do they need? Marriage? You willing to extend that to those with a Polygamous orientation?
To be honest, I really don’t care who marries whom. I have not read much on polygamy, but the arguments against it seem extremely complex and far fetched. So really, until I saw definitive evidence that it was a terrible, abhorrent practice, I doubt I would care.
You know how much two gays getting married affects me? Not at all.
You know how much some dude having five wives affects me? Not at all.
I live my life and go about my business. I don’t quite understand why other people have such a hard time with that.
[/quote]
In the end, such things will have an effect on society. And society will provide parameters for just how you’ll live your own life. The debate is over the harm, or the benefit.
I don’t know. It just seems to me that many folks only consider how something effects them (or society) in the near future. A sort of go along and get along until my death. At which point, I no longer exist to worry over, or bear responsibility for, the results.
It’s sort of like divore and illegitimate birth rates. I haven’t personally participated in either. Yet, while they may not directly involve myself for instance, the consequences have caught up with all of us. Increased poverty, crime, cost to local and federal governments, etc.
And, with an aging population, and less workers per benefit recipient, we’re screwed. We need to propogate our citizenry. Native citizenry, that is. But, not just any old citizens. Law-abiding, productive citizens. Who in turn are predisposed to “go forth and multiply,” raising their own offspring with those same traits. That, comes back to marriage.
It’s not a frivolous issue if one cares what this country may be like long after one has died.
well…im sure this topic has been discussed to death in forlife’s other gay threads. Truth is, until this issue re-appears on the ballot, there is nothing we can do about it.
Forlife, I will say this however, I will always vote against what it is that you seem to want most, because I am a sadist and an asshole.
I do not agree with the views you hold, but I will defend to the death, your right to hold them.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
And being gay has nothing to do with the age of consent being lowered- those are two separate issues.
[/quote]
Tell that to Peter Tatchell a well known gay and human rights activist here in the UK and Outrage a gay and lesbian direct action campaigning group.
Why don’t you want to believe that it’s part of the gay agenda to lower the age of consent to 14?
http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/consent%20at%2014.htm
[quote]JamFly wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
And being gay has nothing to do with the age of consent being lowered- those are two separate issues.
Tell that to Peter Tatchell a well known gay and human rights activist here in the UK and Outrage a gay and lesbian direct action campaigning group.
Why don’t you want to believe that it’s part of the gay agenda to lower the age of consent to 14?
http://www.petertatchell.net/age%20of%20consent/consent%20at%2014.htm
[/quote]
Actually, it would be the pedophile agenda to do that, not the so called gay “agenda”.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
Gays are today’s black people- it’s ok to discriminate and not give them the same legal rights because they’re different and the Bible says they’re evil. [/quote]
Then that means that the millions of blacks against gay marriage are the moral equivalent to the KKK and the vanguard of Jim Crow.
You good with that? You prepared to walk up to a black person and let them know that they are no different than a card-carrying member of the KKK?
I suspect not - just as I suspect you haven’t put much thought into the issue and you just grab a convenient position that won’t get you labeled “uncool”.
Also, a curious note - anyone else notice that no matter what argument gets put forward, from whatever angle, the proponents of gay marriage imagine the opposition arguing from a position to Biblical fundamentalism, thus creating a straw man to argue against? When no such is taking place?
EDIT: typo fixed.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Gays are today’s black people- it’s ok to discriminate and not give them the same legal rights because they’re different and the Bible says they’re evil.
Then that means that the millions of blacks against gay marriage are the moral equivalent to the KKK and the vanguard of Jim Crow.
You good with that? You prepared to walk up to a black person and let them know that they are no different than a card-carrying member of the KKK?
[/quote]
I’ll just let the ridiculousness of this post stand alone.
I really expect better from you.
Now my politics are based on what’s “uncool”?
Jesus, you been drinking tonight?
[quote]
Also, a curious note - anyone else notice that no matter what argument gets put forward, from whatever angle, the proponents of gay marriage imagine the opposition arguing from a position to Biblical fundamentalism, thus creating a straw man to argue against? When no such is taking place?
EDIT: typo fixed.[/quote]
Because that’s the argument that is most often used in decrying gay marriage?
You can argue whatever you want, and I’ll respond to it. I’m just trying to save you guys some time and say that I already know that the magic book says its wrong.
[quote]baretta wrote:
JamFly wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Forlife,
Not only bugger his lover but also have the right to bugger kids if the gay rights movement in the UK gets its way to have the age of consent reduced to 14.
Is this true…disgusting. Imagine having a 14 year old kid with some 40 year old guy trying to have sex with him. If that doesn’t put you in a murderous rage then you are not human.[/quote]
x2. I have a 13 year old son and if some gay guy came onto him next year or until he’s an adult, I’d seriously go after the guy with a pipe wrench.
Let’s play in the Left’s ballpark for a moment.
There are no objective values. What’s right or wrong is decided on by votes. Morality is a matter of votes.
By the Left’s own criterion of right and wrong, they LOST! The issue was voted on and the Leftist kooks and gays lost. And they can’t stand it!
Is it ‘hoisted with their own petard’ or ‘hoisted on their own petard’? Always mix those up…
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I’ll just let the ridiculousness of this post stand alone.
I really expect better from you. [/quote]
Heh - if it is so “ridiculous”, shouldn’t the answer be easy?
You said gays were the equivalent to blacks in terms of their struggle for civil rights - your words.
And, we know that millions of blacks don’t support gay marriage - see California.
So, if they are “equal”, then the opponents are morally “equal” on the same grounds - they deny them the equivalent of “rights” they deserve, and interestingly, they often do because of their religious beliefs.
If they are not equal, why not?
Instead of wanting to shoot out of the trapdoor, take a stand and back the argument you made.
[quote]Now my politics are based on what’s “uncool”?
Jesus, you been drinking tonight?[/quote]
So, tell me - are blacks that oppose gay marriage the moral equivalent to the racists that opposed civil rights?
Or not?
Can’t wait to hear your answer.
Here is a nickel’s worth of free advice - handle the argument in front of you, not the one you wish was in front of you. That will “save you some time”.
I know the reason proponents of gay marriage want to attack religion - gay marriage advocates have their mindless cut-and-pastes ready, and when someone surprises them with “whole new thinkin’”, they are left sputtering and hemming and hawing, and they need to change the subject.
I have been writing page after page opposing gay marriage, and never once on religious grounds, only for proponents to suddenly start squealing “them fundies believe in the ‘magic book’!”.
It’s dull, predictable, and not very smart - and trust me, the rank idiocy we have seen written in defense of gay marriage here is as closed-minded and unblinking as any religious fundamentalism we have seen posted in opposition of it.
And then you write:
You can argue whatever you want, and I’ll respond to it.
…only to try and sidestep the counterargument presented to you regarding your “gays are the new black people” argument - so, anwser the question and let’s see.
[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
Gays are today’s black people- it’s ok to discriminate and not give them the same legal rights because they’re different and the Bible says they’re evil.
Then that means that the millions of blacks against gay marriage are the moral equivalent to the KKK and the vanguard of Jim Crow.
You good with that? You prepared to walk up to a black person and let them know that they are no different than a card-carrying member of the KKK?
I’ll just let the ridiculousness of this post stand alone.
I really expect better from you.
I suspect not - just as I suspect you haven’t put much thought into the issue and you just grab a convenient position that won’t get you labeled “uncool”.
Now my politics are based on what’s “uncool”?
Jesus, you been drinking tonight?
Also, a curious note - anyone else notice that no matter what argument gets put forward, from whatever angle, the proponents of gay marriage imagine the opposition arguing from a position to Biblical fundamentalism, thus creating a straw man to argue against? When no such is taking place?
EDIT: typo fixed.
[/quote]
Those were some great rebuttals
What puzzles me is why both sides give a shit about this. On the for gay marriage side, what’s really the big deal? If you love whoever you are with, what do you need a marriage certificate for? Is it for show? Is it because it’s something you can’t have?
So what if people tell you can or can’t marry, fuck em, true love doesn’t require marriage. Why do you desperately need exceptance so bad?
And for the ones against gay marriage, who cares if they want to get married?
It’s not your business anyway, so what if two guys/two women want to fuck, be married and adopt kids. Plus, if you don’t want to gays to marry, then don’t marry one. People still have bitterness about interracial marriage, but it happens anyway and those who don’t approve it don’t need to do it.
But they still have no right to tell them they can’t be married. So with that said, why should it be different concerning gays?
-_-
my personal concern is regarding the state of the minds of the children, and of the youths the homosexuals are trying to indoctrinate.
[quote]Mick28 wrote:
It’s almost like their posting from some sort of a prepared text and if you don’t respond appropriately they’re lost.[/quote]
OP was undoubtedly a cut and paste from somewhere. It doesn’t even support his position; notice all the passages he quoted describe heterosexual relationships. There isn’t a fag marriage of any type anywhere in the bible.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Faglife’s OP was undoubtedly a cut and paste from somewhere. It doesn’t even support his position; notice all the passages he quoted describe heterosexual relationships. There isn’t a fag marriage of any type anywhere in the bible.[/quote]
Moron, leave the juvenile slanders behind - the only person it is having an effect on is you by labeling you a rank idiot. Enough.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Faglife’s OP was undoubtedly a cut and paste from somewhere. It doesn’t even support his position; notice all the passages he quoted describe heterosexual relationships. There isn’t a fag marriage of any type anywhere in the bible.
Moron, leave the juvenile slanders behind - the only person it is having an effect on is you by labeling you a rank idiot. Enough.
[/quote]
Jeepers Thunderbolt, I’m not sure what you mean. Sorry, I refuse to use the PC term “gay”. Just as a meth addict’s life disgusts me,and I might choose the term crackhead.
If you want to debate with Forlife from another angle, it’s a free country bro.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Mr. Chen wrote:
Faglife’s OP was undoubtedly a cut and paste from somewhere. It doesn’t even support his position; notice all the passages he quoted describe heterosexual relationships. There isn’t a fag marriage of any type anywhere in the bible.
Moron, leave the juvenile slanders behind - the only person it is having an effect on is you by labeling you a rank idiot. Enough.
Jeepers Thunderbolt, I’m not sure what you mean. Is it because I used the word “fag”? Sorry, I refuse to use the PC term “gay”. I use fag as a derogatory term, because their “lifestyle” disgusts me.
Just as a meth addict’s life disgusts me,and I might choose the term crackhead. If you want to debate with Forlife from another angle, it’s a free country bro. Faglife is also free to call me any name in the book, or abuse my screen name if he chooses, and I promise not to flip out an start shooting. I’m a libertarian.
[/quote]
meth isn’t crack broski.
[quote]Mr. Chen wrote:
Mick28 wrote:
It’s almost like their posting from some sort of a prepared text and if you don’t respond appropriately they’re lost.
Faglife’s OP was undoubtedly a cut and paste from somewhere. It doesn’t even support his position; notice all the passages he quoted describe heterosexual relationships. There isn’t a fag marriage of any type anywhere in the bible.
[/quote]
Lot of people cut and paste from text’s elsewhere, nothing new. And so what if the bible doesn’t talk about gay marriages, believe it or not, not everyone lives their life according to what it says.
By the way, everyone has their opinions, and viewpoints regarding this topic. Either you are for, against or don’t give a shit, but whatever the case, let’s respect the individual. There’s no need to call anyone a fag, I bet you wouldn’t like people on here calling you “Mr. Chink”. Grow up.