Sore Losers
-
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!
-
Mike Mullikin wrote:
I guess I've never viewed marriage as a basic human right.
I have always used a simple test to determine if something is a basic human right. Do you still have it if you are the only person on earth? Free speech - yep Right to property - yep (and a lot of property it is) Marriage - nope, nobody to be married to Health Care - only what you can provide for yourself Food - only what you can provide for yourself As for gay marriage - knock yourselves out - quickly followed by gay divorce...
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended. I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended. Dave
DRHuff wrote:
I have always used a simple test to determine if something is a basic human right. Do you still have it if you are the only person on earth? Free speech - yep Right to property - yep (and a lot of property it is) Marriage - nope, nobody to be married to Health Care - only what you can provide for yourself Food - only what you can provide for yourself
I don't agree with the efficacy of that test. You don't have any rights when you're the only one left on Earth. The concept would make no sense. Sure you can talk freely, and take whatever property you like, but what determines if it's a right or not? Why do you not have the right to get married? Just because there are no women to get married to, doesn't mean you don't have the right to. You can take whatever food you like, just as you can take whatever property you like, so how is the latter a right and the former not?
-
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!
Tim Craig wrote:
So equal rights and fair treatment just don't enter into their thinking?
The vocal activist minority that's causing the most problems? No. The quite majority of them who actually brought this issue up and gave the whackos their talking points? Yes.
Tim Craig wrote:
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?
Good God, don't start heading in that direction, we were having an actual discussion. Don't turn it into another SB fiasco where we assume the worst of every comment because the other guy HAS to be a complete whak-job. Give me the credit I deserve so I can do the same for you.
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.
I hear you. The economy is about to show people a pucker factor they weren't aware existed.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.
-
DRHuff wrote:
I have always used a simple test to determine if something is a basic human right. Do you still have it if you are the only person on earth? Free speech - yep Right to property - yep (and a lot of property it is) Marriage - nope, nobody to be married to Health Care - only what you can provide for yourself Food - only what you can provide for yourself
I don't agree with the efficacy of that test. You don't have any rights when you're the only one left on Earth. The concept would make no sense. Sure you can talk freely, and take whatever property you like, but what determines if it's a right or not? Why do you not have the right to get married? Just because there are no women to get married to, doesn't mean you don't have the right to. You can take whatever food you like, just as you can take whatever property you like, so how is the latter a right and the former not?
-
You're a kid. You have no rights ;)
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of CHILLING OUT! :cool::cool::cool:
-
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?
They are making physical threats and attacking people. I am with the gays on this broadly, what they do in private is not my business, and I don't care if they get married. But, if they start to be hitting people, then they lose my sympathy.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
-
I have the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of CHILLING OUT! :cool::cool::cool:
-
They are making physical threats and attacking people. I am with the gays on this broadly, what they do in private is not my business, and I don't care if they get married. But, if they start to be hitting people, then they lose my sympathy.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. "Iam doing the browsing center project in vb.net using c# coding" - this is why I don't answer questions much anymore. Oh, and Microsoft doesn't want me to.
Yeah, I don't think violence is the right thing to do, but they're understandably really pissed off, and they've pretty much been all talk. I'm not sure that they'll actually burn down churches and whatever.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
right to life
mebbe
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
liberty
'fraid not
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
CHILLING OUT
Like a fine wine?
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
mebbe
Yeah, probably not.
Oakman wrote:
'fraid not
Yeah.
Oakman wrote:
Like a fine wine?
Like GETTING VERTICAL! :cool::cool::cool:
-
Rob Graham wrote:
you create an opportunity for inequity in terms of equal protection under the law, and where the opportunity exists the reality will as well
I don't think it necessarily would, but I guess I see the possibility. I don't see anything wrong with seperating them either. Which would amount to changing the text on a marriage license to say "Civil Union".
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 it necessarily would, but I guess I see the possibility.
It is not a mere possibility. It is a fact. There is a wide class of benefits only available to people who are married. There is also a Federal law (the Defence of Marriage Act) that prohibits the Federal Government and all federal agencies from extending any federal marriage-based benefits, privileges and rights to same-sex couples (this is true even if they are married). http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/11/06/doma/index.html[^]
John Carson
-
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Oakman wrote:
The state should provide only civil unions and leave marriage as something for churches to decide.
Churches or any other private organisation that wants to set itself up in the marriage-issuing business. While I agree that the state should only provide civil unions, I doubt that the proposal will work politically. The traditionalists who oppose gay marriage are also likely to be traditionalists in the sense of wanting state sanctioning of their marriage.
John Carson
-
Since when did "a man" mean something other than "1 man"? Now you embarrass yourself.
Rob Graham wrote:
Since when did "a man" mean something other than "1 man"? Now you embarrass yourself.
The covenant of marriage is always between 1 man and 1 woman. In the past, 1 man could have a covenant between himself and multiple women (I suppose one could still do this although illegally in this country), but the women were not married to the other women just because the man was married to them. Now you could probably site examples of other arrangements, but honestly this is the definition of marriage we have had for thousands of years. If standing up for my beliefs is embarrassing, then so be it. I will do my best to do what is right.
"Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein
Jason Henderson