EPTWashington State Votes to Approve Gay Marriage - Page 25
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
KookyMonster
United States311 Posts
| ||
|
iamahydralisk
United States813 Posts
On February 10 2012 15:01 fiftycaliber wrote: this is disgusting, i am from Washington state and i was never informed of this bill, looks like the gays snuck one by us. lol, you'll certainly last a long time here | ||
|
Werk
United States294 Posts
| ||
|
iamahydralisk
United States813 Posts
On February 10 2012 16:13 Werk wrote: Proud to live in WA! Its quite comical, going 30 miles east of where i live into idaho, and seeing how different people are over there on this subject... depends on where you go in idaho. anywhere near moscow is honestly skinhead territory and that's where the crazies are, but things are a lot more tolerant in boise. | ||
|
Werk
United States294 Posts
On February 10 2012 16:16 iamahydralisk wrote: depends on where you go in idaho. anywhere near moscow is honestly skinhead territory and that's where the crazies are, but things are a lot more tolerant in boise. Ive never been to Boise, it sounds like a nice artsy place, but CDA and post falls....phew... | ||
|
VTPerfect
United States487 Posts
| ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
[QUOTE]On February 09 2012 22:03 Cubu wrote: [QUOTE]On February 09 2012 20:39 Paperplane wrote: ... In a secular country (which the US should be according to its constitution), the legal concept of marriage and the concept of marriage by a religious faction should be completely separate. And this is a step towards that. ... [/QUOTE] I know what you mean (I hope) and I don't particularly disagree, but I don't want this to be taken out of proportion either way and warrant ill-based attack. The U.S. Should not get involved, not be secular per say. But by not getting involved, you are agnostic which is similar (if not the same). So this statement is not promoting Russia in America nor is it wrong. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
Proposition 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples. http://www.scribd.com/doc/80810856/Prop-8-Unconstitutional-Ninth-Circuit | ||
|
zomgE
498 Posts
Even more stupid if the religion changes it's beliefs all the time, it's kind of admitting that the beliefs aren't good in the first place -> not worth getting into. Just seems pretty werid. If they really wanted to be more tolerant etc they should try to transcend from religious stuff and leave it behind all together. That's were this antigay thing comes in the first place. | ||
|
Dekoth
United States527 Posts
Here is a news flash to those claiming marriage is a religious function, It isn't. Marriage exists just fine without religious interference. Those trying to use this argument are basically trying to argue that anyone that doesn't believe in their religion do not have the right to marry. Now since obviously going after athiests, non religious or other religions wouldn't fly they instead try to single out the one group that remains vulnerable due to unfortunate religious influence in our government. Simply put you cannot deny a LBGT person marriage under the argument of religion and allow an athiest to marry. That is straight hypocritical logic. The simple fact of the matter is marriage is a protected governmental right and it is unfairly being denied to a specific group of people. That is the very definition of discrimination and anyone supporting the direct discrimination of people and thus denying them government benefits should be ashamed of themselves. There is No logical argument against gay marriage that isn't based in bigotry. The sooner people realize that and the government tells those groups "too bad" and passes into law, the better. | ||
|
Stratos_speAr
United States6959 Posts
On February 10 2012 12:53 ampson wrote: By your logic I can say that this whole gay marriage legalization process in too inconvenient. Marriage has always been between a man and a woman before, and we shouldn't jump through so many hurdles just so that 1.5% of the population aren't offended. The truth is, everybody matters. Any solution that can be the best for everybody involved will be the best solution. Except that homosexuals have a basis for their complaints (oppression of a minority), religious people don't. This does not affect them in anyway. It isn't forcing them to allow homosexuals to get married in their church. I don't know why anyone would fight so much to be a part of religion..marriage is a religious thing right? Maybe not so much anymore but still. Even more stupid if the religion changes it's beliefs all the time, it's kind of admitting that the beliefs aren't good in the first place -> not worth getting into. Just seems pretty werid. If they really wanted to be more tolerant etc they should try to transcend from religious stuff and leave it behind all together. That's were this antigay thing comes in the first place. No. Marriage is not a religious matter. | ||
|
Barburas
United Kingdom247 Posts
On February 10 2012 23:21 zomgE wrote: I don't know why anyone would fight so much to be a part of religion..marriage is a religious thing right? Maybe not so much anymore but still. Even more stupid if the religion changes it's beliefs all the time, it's kind of admitting that the beliefs aren't good in the first place -> not worth getting into. Just seems pretty werid. If they really wanted to be more tolerant etc they should try to transcend from religious stuff and leave it behind all together. That's were this antigay thing comes in the first place. No marriage is not a religious thing, it existed before religion and while important to many religions it is not in itself religious. People aren't fighting for the state to force religions to perform gay marriages, they're fighting for the state itself to recognise it. | ||
|
Alakaslam
United States17336 Posts
On February 10 2012 19:15 VTPerfect wrote: Long ago all people once had 4 hands, 4 arms, 4 legs 2 heads and so on, they were very powerful beings. Zeus fearing their power decided to split these beings in half. Ever since people have been spending all their lives trying to find their other half, because of this great loss, that we might one day be reunited. Whether Male/Female, Male/Male, or Female/Female its all the same. This looks like a troll. I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.) Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this. | ||
|
RHMVNovus
United States738 Posts
On February 10 2012 13:35 ampson wrote: ...No. You can only marry someone of the opposite sex in the states I am referring to. The point I was making is that everybody, regardless of sexuality, has that right. It is therefore not violating the 14th amendment. However, as I have explained, I do not agree with the U.S.'s current policy on marriage. Oh, I see. The right to marry women is afforded to men, but the right to marry women is not afforded to women. But women have a separate right, one that's equal, so it's all cool. | ||
|
ampson
United States2355 Posts
On February 11 2012 05:57 RHMVNovus wrote: Oh, I see. The right to marry women is afforded to men, but the right to marry women is not afforded to women. But women have a separate right, one that's equal, so it's all cool. Men and woman both have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. | ||
|
RHMVNovus
United States738 Posts
On February 11 2012 07:08 ampson wrote: Men and woman both have the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Good. Glad to see we're in agreement. But quick question: who can these people - that have both male and female reproductive tissue - marry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_hermaphroditism | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4951 Posts
On February 11 2012 01:54 Jrocker152 wrote: This looks like a troll. I disagree. It does make a difference. (If only because homosexual tendencies are unnatural. That does not mean any more than that, by the way.) Eh, kind of opened pandora's box there. Basically we all do unnatural things, the point in saying homosexual things are unnatural is not to attack homosexual people. It is to state fact, the natural purpose of sex is procreation. Since you cannot naturally reproduce homosexually as a human being, homosexuality is unnatural for humans. If we legally forbade every unnatural thing we do we would always be cited for Purposeful cliffhanger sentence^^. Long mundane list you can imagine. I don't want to get into it, I'm not wrong. This is too easily misunderstood and I won't argue with people who agree with me and don't realize it or are so far gone politically that they will deny what they know to be true as a hoax. And I am not going to defend any strawmans of this. If the sole reason for sex is to reproduce, then why do people have sex just for fun? Why do we have contraceptives? Sex as it's performed by man, monkey, other species that enjoy copulating, has been abused for unnatural ways for millions of years. Your argument is invalid. And homosexuality is SO natural it's not even funny anymore. | ||
|
TheYukoner
Canada80 Posts
 | ||
|
RHMVNovus
United States738 Posts
On February 11 2012 09:29 Uldridge wrote: If the sole reason for sex is to reproduce, then why do people have sex just for fun? Why do we have contraceptives? Sex as it's performed by man, monkey, other species that enjoy copulating, has been abused for unnatural ways for millions of years. Your argument is invalid. And homosexuality is SO natural it's not even funny anymore. I question why 'the purpose of humanity' bit isn't questioned. I have no idea why reproduction is considered the best function of humanity. Sure, it's a major driver in evolution. Sure, it's hard-wired into our very DNA. Doesn't mean it's good. Were reproduction the sole reason for existence, it would be completely reasonable for a society to do everything within its power pregnant women from smoking. Or being overweight. Or living with someone who smokes. Or working long hours on her feet while pregnant. Were reproduction the end-all, be-all of our existence, rape would be completely acceptable. Why aren't these reasonable or acceptable? Because, aside from being misogynist as hell, our society values self-actualization over reproduction. Marriage is not excepted. Thus, the reproduction argument is weird and confusing. | ||
|
W2
United States1177 Posts
I'm a tiny bit homophobic but I'll never understand why some people feel they can devoid rights of others. | ||
| ||
