Sore Losers
-
Tim Craig wrote:
then there are two classes of citizens
You mean two classes of legal unions for citizens. What would be the problem with that?
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
I think the whole thing is a silly argument. Like Jon, I think we should drop "marriage" from the legal lexicon, and extend "civil union" with a detailed description of the obligations and privileges of that civil contractual agreement to any two people who wish to enter into it. I limit the concept to two people, because it becomes too complex to fairly administer dissolution if more than two are involved. I doubt if the emotionally invested on either side will ever agree though.
Rob Graham wrote:
I doubt if the emotionally invested on either side will ever agree though.
I suspect that if the governments really went through with it and dropped marriage completely in favor of civil unions, a lot more gays would accept it than the religious fundamentalists. I suspect with many of them, they're not as invested in the marriage part as opposed to the gay part.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
Rob Graham wrote:
I doubt if the emotionally invested on either side will ever agree though.
I suspect that if the governments really went through with it and dropped marriage completely in favor of civil unions, a lot more gays would accept it than the religious fundamentalists. I suspect with many of them, they're not as invested in the marriage part as opposed to the gay part.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
Tim Craig wrote:
I suspect with many of them, they're not as invested in the marriage part as opposed to the gay part.
You're probably right. And the gay activists are probably more interested in agitating the religious than they are the marriage part. I don't think either side is really being honest about their argument with this issue.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Precisely. Now if we could just convince the others, one more divisive issue would disappear with no puppies harmed.
Ah but where would the fun in that be? A lot of people are in this argument just to argue. But I guess that's true of most arguments.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Jason Henderson wrote:
I thought they already had civil unions in CA.
It's not about "civil unions," and it's not even about marriage (except in as far as there are people wanting to destroy marriage), and it's certainly not about equal rights (which they've had forever, in any event). It's about special privileges. It's about using governmental compulsion to force everyone else to approve of them.
-
Oakman wrote:
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
I agree and would even take it one step further. The government's only legitimate involvement in how human beings decide to associate with one another is when there is at least one individual in the relationship financially dependent upon the other(s).
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
Stan Shannon wrote:
The government's only legitimate involvement in how human beings decide to associate with one another is when there is at least one individual in the relationship financially dependent upon the other(s).
Gee, Stan. You mean like a slave? :laugh:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
BoneSoft wrote:
I have no problem admitting that I am a little bitter over the election.
When you lose fairly, than you should certainly have enough class to accept the results. However, when the results are largely the consequence of one side flagrantly and openly cheating with no attempt at all to even hide the fact that it is cheating, being a sore loser is perfectly legitimate, because frankly you didn't lose fairly.
Chaining ourselves to the moral high ground does not make us good guys. Aside from making us easy targets, it merely makes us idiotic prisoners of our own self loathing.
-
I didn't say between 1 man and 1 woman. So there. ;P
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
Since when did "a man" mean something other than "1 man"? Now you embarrass yourself.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I suspect with many of them, they're not as invested in the marriage part as opposed to the gay part.
You're probably right. And the gay activists are probably more interested in agitating the religious than they are the marriage part. I don't think either side is really being honest about their argument with this issue.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
I don't think either side is really being honest about their argument with this issue.
I agree.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
I suspect with many of them, they're not as invested in the marriage part as opposed to the gay part.
You're probably right. And the gay activists are probably more interested in agitating the religious than they are the marriage part. I don't think either side is really being honest about their argument with this issue.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
BoneSoft wrote:
And the gay activists are probably more interested in agitating the religious than they are the marriage part.
So equal rights and fair treatment just don't enter into their thinking? Something like 10% of the population woke up one morning and decided, I think I'll become homosexual to see how stirred up I can make the religious right?
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
Ah but where would the fun in that be? A lot of people are in this argument just to argue. But I guess that's true of most arguments.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
If it only impacted things like this forum, I would say argue away. Unfortunately this is one of several issues that distract from addressing problems that may make this one and the other "social issues" like it mute.
-
If it only impacted things like this forum, I would say argue away. Unfortunately this is one of several issues that distract from addressing problems that may make this one and the other "social issues" like it mute.
-
You're so intellectually dishonest. :doh:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
If it only impacted things like this forum, I would say argue away. Unfortunately this is one of several issues that distract from addressing problems that may make this one and the other "social issues" like it mute.
Yeah no kidding. I was thinking today after the latest news (car manufactures crumbling, US borrowing $900B, etc) that the economic problems may turn into a far worse situation than most people imagine. I have this distant fear that everything is about to completely collapse, and it's inexorably becoming less distant. Almost makes me wonder if there isn't a little truth in some of the more recent whacky conspiracy theories.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
You're so intellectually dishonest. :doh:
The simple fact is that you're such a liar.
-
So they want their rights, but they want to take away the rights of others. Activism is a good thing until you take it too far and gays are pushing this thing way too far. Someone is going to get seriously hurt.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson
What rights of others are they taking away? Their right to be morally outraged by the gross gays? Their right to cling to their worthless traditions ad nauseum? Their right to impose themselves on others for no reason other than that they feel like it? Their right to force their values lynch-mob-style on weaker minorities?
-
You're a horse's ass.
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
-
BoneSoft wrote:
What would be the problem with that?
Separate but equal was the rallying cry during the days of racial segregation. Do you see a problem with that?
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!
Though it's not a great analogy, I see your point.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
The government's only legitimate involvement in how human beings decide to associate with one another is when there is at least one individual in the relationship financially dependent upon the other(s).
Gee, Stan. You mean like a slave? :laugh:
Your silly assed, irrelevant opinion has been duly noted. Now take it elsewhere!