|
On July 09 2012 23:03 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 22:41 Gnosis wrote:On July 09 2012 22:34 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:11 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 22:04 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 21:59 Zorkmid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the shit man? How does gay marriage lead to free pedophilia and rapist social security? See my above post. You mean gays in general? I only am against gay marriage not gay people. The reason it could is due to how things become normal and then people decide to change something else due to their bleeding heart ideology. Oh its wrong that we treat rapists that way, its not their fault they don't have a choice in how they act. DO YOU LITERALLY NOT SEE THIS BULLCRAP CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO LOGICS? I am saying it could happen and dammit there is a real possibility with how stupid people are becoming. Now what i am saying is that,we should let it stay at gay marriage debates and keep it there so we don't ever have to deal with this crap. Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument. i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book. I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say. Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct. Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well). As for me, I don't agree with gay marriage, but I hesitate to say that, frankly, in a discussion dominated by self-enlightened moralists who have nothing better to do than to try to shame people into their belief (or out of the discussion). If gay marriage isn't wrong because there's no 'right or wrong' (strictly speaking), then there's nothing wrong with my view either. If morality is relative, then please shut up. If there is something substantial to morality, I haven't really seen that sort of thinking on display. Causing unnecessary harm to other people is wrong. Segregating a portion of the population for no reason, denying them the same treatment as is afforded to others or imposing one person's belief system over others causes such harm.
Wrong according to what (or whose) standard?
|
On July 09 2012 23:13 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:03 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 09 2012 22:41 Gnosis wrote:On July 09 2012 22:34 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:11 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 22:04 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 21:59 Zorkmid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the shit man? How does gay marriage lead to free pedophilia and rapist social security? See my above post. You mean gays in general? I only am against gay marriage not gay people. The reason it could is due to how things become normal and then people decide to change something else due to their bleeding heart ideology. Oh its wrong that we treat rapists that way, its not their fault they don't have a choice in how they act. DO YOU LITERALLY NOT SEE THIS BULLCRAP CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO LOGICS? I am saying it could happen and dammit there is a real possibility with how stupid people are becoming. Now what i am saying is that,we should let it stay at gay marriage debates and keep it there so we don't ever have to deal with this crap. Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument. i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book. I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say. Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct. Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well). As for me, I don't agree with gay marriage, but I hesitate to say that, frankly, in a discussion dominated by self-enlightened moralists who have nothing better to do than to try to shame people into their belief (or out of the discussion). If gay marriage isn't wrong because there's no 'right or wrong' (strictly speaking), then there's nothing wrong with my view either. If morality is relative, then please shut up. If there is something substantial to morality, I haven't really seen that sort of thinking on display. Causing unnecessary harm to other people is wrong. Segregating a portion of the population for no reason, denying them the same treatment as is afforded to others or imposing one person's belief system over others causes such harm. Wrong according to what (or whose) standard?
You dispute that causing unnecessary harm to people is wrong?
|
On July 09 2012 23:13 Gnosis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:03 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 09 2012 22:41 Gnosis wrote:On July 09 2012 22:34 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:11 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 22:04 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 21:59 Zorkmid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the shit man? How does gay marriage lead to free pedophilia and rapist social security? See my above post. You mean gays in general? I only am against gay marriage not gay people. The reason it could is due to how things become normal and then people decide to change something else due to their bleeding heart ideology. Oh its wrong that we treat rapists that way, its not their fault they don't have a choice in how they act. DO YOU LITERALLY NOT SEE THIS BULLCRAP CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO LOGICS? I am saying it could happen and dammit there is a real possibility with how stupid people are becoming. Now what i am saying is that,we should let it stay at gay marriage debates and keep it there so we don't ever have to deal with this crap. Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument. i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book. I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say. Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct. Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well). As for me, I don't agree with gay marriage, but I hesitate to say that, frankly, in a discussion dominated by self-enlightened moralists who have nothing better to do than to try to shame people into their belief (or out of the discussion). If gay marriage isn't wrong because there's no 'right or wrong' (strictly speaking), then there's nothing wrong with my view either. If morality is relative, then please shut up. If there is something substantial to morality, I haven't really seen that sort of thinking on display. Causing unnecessary harm to other people is wrong. Segregating a portion of the population for no reason, denying them the same treatment as is afforded to others or imposing one person's belief system over others causes such harm. Wrong according to what (or whose) standard?
I believe it would be an almost universal understanding that causing unnecessary harm is wrong. It is the basis for a huge amount of laws, literature, philosophy, etc. If you're saying you disagree with that I'd be quite happy to attempt to further back my claim up, but I'm a little surprised by your reply so wanted to make sure that's what you meant.
Subjective morality allows for such claims from the majority.
|
On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are.
Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure.
|
On July 09 2012 23:10 Elsid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:05 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 22:55 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:54 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 21:57 taintmachine wrote:On July 09 2012 21:28 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it. consent has a lot to do with sex in america. minors are generally not seen as being able to legally consent to various things. the homosexual marriage issue is concerned with a consenual relationship b/w adults. as the law sees it, a minor cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. if americans changed their views on consent then maybe but as i said, this concerns adults to a few other people, being afraid of homosexual pedophiles as a result of homosexual rights is ridiculous. it'd make more sense to be morally outraged at heterosexual marriage, as afaik heterosexual pedophilia is more common (note some ppl don't even label pedophiles as being homosexual or heterosexual, tho i don't think that makes much sense) That's a fair enough point, although I don't think we should be satisfied with the idea that the only thing stopping an older adult from having a sexual relationship with a young teen is the idea that the teen cannot legally consent. Accepting your point however we still run into problems with the "legalize love" rationale in stopping polygamy, or in stopping incestual relationships by consenting adults (and even if you argue that it's unhealthy for their potential children, that doesnt stop a same sex incestual relationship or a relationship by people who are sterile). My basic point is that the idea that we should be "legalizing love" doesn't really make any sense with the actual changes people want. Obviously most people aren't in favor of legalizing polygamy or incestual marriage, and since of those relationships involve love and are between consenting adults, how do you justify legalizing one but not the other? I really don't think there is a problem with consensual polygamy or consensual incest. There done now it's all justified legally. Not to mention the law at the moment clearly shows it doesn't have to make sense with straight people being fine to marry but gay people not. Sorry, but the standards by which society governs itself should be logically consistent. All I'm trying to say is that you can support gay marriage, but you're gonna need a better reason to do so than "legalize love". Otherwise we're gonna run into weird unintended consequences. As I said I have no problem with consensual relationships between any number of people of any number of genders or relation. It really doesn't matter to me as long as both parties are consenting and are of the legal age to consent. This is logically consistent.
I was responding to your statement that "the law at the moment clearly shows it doesn't have to make sense". I disagree, it does need to make sense otherwise we have terrible laws. If you are in favor of those types of relationships having state sponsored marriage then you're right, you are logically consistent.
But in the U.S. the gay marriage movement is about same sex unions between two people, and they specifically reject any notion that it opens the door to having marriage for other relaitionships. As a mainstream company, I assume Google mirrors this position. Thus, their statement of "legalizing love" is not logically consistent with the law they want passed.
|
On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure.
Should naturally infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? What about couples that CAN but don't intend to have children?
If the benefits come with having children, why not just give all those benefits when the children are actually in the picture? Why in hell would they get benefits their whole life if they never have kids but are married?
Either you don't know what the benefits are and their reason, or you're just trying to camouflage your dislike for homosexuals.
|
On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure.
Two words. Sterile couples. Hit me, what have you got? Should they be disallowed from marrying?
Oh and if that's not enough how about couples who decide not to have children? Seriously you're arguments aren't original and they're not thought out. They're stupid trite and it's easy to point out why and where they're wrong.
|
On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:
Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure.
With this view, should also man and woman, who are unable to get children, be the reason any, not be able to marry? Example if a man is sterile, and there for he cannot have child, he should not be allowed to marry?
|
On July 09 2012 23:14 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:13 Gnosis wrote:On July 09 2012 23:03 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 09 2012 22:41 Gnosis wrote:On July 09 2012 22:34 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:11 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 22:04 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 21:59 Zorkmid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the shit man? How does gay marriage lead to free pedophilia and rapist social security? See my above post. You mean gays in general? I only am against gay marriage not gay people. The reason it could is due to how things become normal and then people decide to change something else due to their bleeding heart ideology. Oh its wrong that we treat rapists that way, its not their fault they don't have a choice in how they act. DO YOU LITERALLY NOT SEE THIS BULLCRAP CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO LOGICS? I am saying it could happen and dammit there is a real possibility with how stupid people are becoming. Now what i am saying is that,we should let it stay at gay marriage debates and keep it there so we don't ever have to deal with this crap. Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument. i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book. I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say. Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct. Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well). As for me, I don't agree with gay marriage, but I hesitate to say that, frankly, in a discussion dominated by self-enlightened moralists who have nothing better to do than to try to shame people into their belief (or out of the discussion). If gay marriage isn't wrong because there's no 'right or wrong' (strictly speaking), then there's nothing wrong with my view either. If morality is relative, then please shut up. If there is something substantial to morality, I haven't really seen that sort of thinking on display. Causing unnecessary harm to other people is wrong. Segregating a portion of the population for no reason, denying them the same treatment as is afforded to others or imposing one person's belief system over others causes such harm. Wrong according to what (or whose) standard? You dispute that causing unnecessary harm to people is wrong?
I'm not disputing anything right now. I'm asking why I should accept this as wrong. If you would like to go off on same inflamatory rant on how I should see this as obvious, save yourself the effort.
On July 09 2012 23:15 Iyerbeth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:13 Gnosis wrote:On July 09 2012 23:03 Iyerbeth wrote:On July 09 2012 22:41 Gnosis wrote:On July 09 2012 22:34 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:11 Crushinator wrote:On July 09 2012 22:04 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 21:59 Zorkmid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the shit man? How does gay marriage lead to free pedophilia and rapist social security? See my above post. You mean gays in general? I only am against gay marriage not gay people. The reason it could is due to how things become normal and then people decide to change something else due to their bleeding heart ideology. Oh its wrong that we treat rapists that way, its not their fault they don't have a choice in how they act. DO YOU LITERALLY NOT SEE THIS BULLCRAP CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO LOGICS? I am saying it could happen and dammit there is a real possibility with how stupid people are becoming. Now what i am saying is that,we should let it stay at gay marriage debates and keep it there so we don't ever have to deal with this crap. Your post is an excellent example of how stupid some people have been for ages. What a bunch of idiotic incoherent rambling. Learn to construct a fucking argument. i call bullshit, my argument is taking two things that have a similar background to it. The level of the two vary at a substantial amount yet the main ideology is intact. We have a choice in everything we do, I believe we should take account for whatever decisions we make whether they are good or bad.Being gay is nowhere near as bad as raping someone yet it is still a choice in my book. I believe that political correctness is a bunch of bullshit. If you are politically correct you can call someone a bigot or retarded and its perfectly ok.It also tries to make humans seem like they have no logic and no reason and no ability to comprehend what they do. This is literally bullshit, I know for a fact that unless you literally are retarded due to a medical condition, you do have control over what you do and say. Even though i am probably a thousand times smarter then you.You can say what you want about who I am or what I believe in.At least i am not controlled by what society deems as correct. Just because you are comparing two things which you believe are choices, doesn't make the comparison valid. If you want to argue on the basis of moral decay, e.g. that gay marriage is one step down the path of moral decay, pederasty another (what you called pedophilia), then perhaps you should (and good luck with that as well). As for me, I don't agree with gay marriage, but I hesitate to say that, frankly, in a discussion dominated by self-enlightened moralists who have nothing better to do than to try to shame people into their belief (or out of the discussion). If gay marriage isn't wrong because there's no 'right or wrong' (strictly speaking), then there's nothing wrong with my view either. If morality is relative, then please shut up. If there is something substantial to morality, I haven't really seen that sort of thinking on display. Causing unnecessary harm to other people is wrong. Segregating a portion of the population for no reason, denying them the same treatment as is afforded to others or imposing one person's belief system over others causes such harm. Wrong according to what (or whose) standard? I believe it would be an almost universal understanding that causing unnecessary harm is wrong. It is the basis for a huge amount of laws, literature, philosophy, etc. If you're saying you disagree with that I'd be quite happy to attempt to further back my claim up, but I'm a little surprised by your reply so wanted to make sure that's what you meant.
That's what I meant, yes. It seemed to me a far more interesting response than going after your claim that the prohibition of gay marriage represents segregation for no reason, or that the prohibition of gay marriage is an example of an illegitimate imposition of belief (beliefs are imposed all the time, so this in itself isn't much of an issue).
So yes, why should I accept this particular moral precept?
|
On July 09 2012 23:20 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:10 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 23:05 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 22:55 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:54 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 21:57 taintmachine wrote:On July 09 2012 21:28 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it. consent has a lot to do with sex in america. minors are generally not seen as being able to legally consent to various things. the homosexual marriage issue is concerned with a consenual relationship b/w adults. as the law sees it, a minor cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. if americans changed their views on consent then maybe but as i said, this concerns adults to a few other people, being afraid of homosexual pedophiles as a result of homosexual rights is ridiculous. it'd make more sense to be morally outraged at heterosexual marriage, as afaik heterosexual pedophilia is more common (note some ppl don't even label pedophiles as being homosexual or heterosexual, tho i don't think that makes much sense) That's a fair enough point, although I don't think we should be satisfied with the idea that the only thing stopping an older adult from having a sexual relationship with a young teen is the idea that the teen cannot legally consent. Accepting your point however we still run into problems with the "legalize love" rationale in stopping polygamy, or in stopping incestual relationships by consenting adults (and even if you argue that it's unhealthy for their potential children, that doesnt stop a same sex incestual relationship or a relationship by people who are sterile). My basic point is that the idea that we should be "legalizing love" doesn't really make any sense with the actual changes people want. Obviously most people aren't in favor of legalizing polygamy or incestual marriage, and since of those relationships involve love and are between consenting adults, how do you justify legalizing one but not the other? I really don't think there is a problem with consensual polygamy or consensual incest. There done now it's all justified legally. Not to mention the law at the moment clearly shows it doesn't have to make sense with straight people being fine to marry but gay people not. Sorry, but the standards by which society governs itself should be logically consistent. All I'm trying to say is that you can support gay marriage, but you're gonna need a better reason to do so than "legalize love". Otherwise we're gonna run into weird unintended consequences. As I said I have no problem with consensual relationships between any number of people of any number of genders or relation. It really doesn't matter to me as long as both parties are consenting and are of the legal age to consent. This is logically consistent. I was responding to your statement that "the law at the moment clearly shows it doesn't have to make sense". I disagree, it does need to make sense otherwise we have terrible laws. If you are in favor of those types of relationships having state sponsored marriage then you're right, you are logically consistent. But in the U.S. the gay marriage movement is about same sex unions between two people, and they specifically reject any notion that it opens the door to having marriage for other relaitionships. As a mainstream company, I assume Google mirrors this position. Thus, their statement of "legalizing love" is not logically consistent with the law they want passed.
As has been said many times in this thread only legalizing heterosexual marriage is not logically consistent. Also legalizing love may just be a poetic slogan.
|
On July 09 2012 23:20 BobbyT wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:10 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 23:05 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 22:55 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:54 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 21:57 taintmachine wrote:On July 09 2012 21:28 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it. consent has a lot to do with sex in america. minors are generally not seen as being able to legally consent to various things. the homosexual marriage issue is concerned with a consenual relationship b/w adults. as the law sees it, a minor cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. if americans changed their views on consent then maybe but as i said, this concerns adults to a few other people, being afraid of homosexual pedophiles as a result of homosexual rights is ridiculous. it'd make more sense to be morally outraged at heterosexual marriage, as afaik heterosexual pedophilia is more common (note some ppl don't even label pedophiles as being homosexual or heterosexual, tho i don't think that makes much sense) That's a fair enough point, although I don't think we should be satisfied with the idea that the only thing stopping an older adult from having a sexual relationship with a young teen is the idea that the teen cannot legally consent. Accepting your point however we still run into problems with the "legalize love" rationale in stopping polygamy, or in stopping incestual relationships by consenting adults (and even if you argue that it's unhealthy for their potential children, that doesnt stop a same sex incestual relationship or a relationship by people who are sterile). My basic point is that the idea that we should be "legalizing love" doesn't really make any sense with the actual changes people want. Obviously most people aren't in favor of legalizing polygamy or incestual marriage, and since of those relationships involve love and are between consenting adults, how do you justify legalizing one but not the other? I really don't think there is a problem with consensual polygamy or consensual incest. There done now it's all justified legally. Not to mention the law at the moment clearly shows it doesn't have to make sense with straight people being fine to marry but gay people not. Sorry, but the standards by which society governs itself should be logically consistent. All I'm trying to say is that you can support gay marriage, but you're gonna need a better reason to do so than "legalize love". Otherwise we're gonna run into weird unintended consequences. As I said I have no problem with consensual relationships between any number of people of any number of genders or relation. It really doesn't matter to me as long as both parties are consenting and are of the legal age to consent. This is logically consistent. I was responding to your statement that "the law at the moment clearly shows it doesn't have to make sense". I disagree, it does need to make sense otherwise we have terrible laws. If you are in favor of those types of relationships having state sponsored marriage then you're right, you are logically consistent. But in the U.S. the gay marriage movement is about same sex unions between two people, and they specifically reject any notion that it opens the door to having marriage for other relaitionships. As a mainstream company, I assume Google mirrors this position. Thus, their statement of "legalizing love" is not logically consistent with the law they want passed.
I think ''Legalizing love'' is just a slogan dude.
|
On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids?
Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied.
|
On July 09 2012 23:23 Lafie wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:
Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. With this view, should also man and woman, who are unable to get children, be the reason any, not be able to marry? Example if a man is sterile, and there for he cannot have child, he should not be allowed to marry?
Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied.
|
On July 09 2012 23:24 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:20 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 23:10 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 23:05 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 22:55 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:54 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 21:57 taintmachine wrote:On July 09 2012 21:28 BobbyT wrote:On July 09 2012 20:54 Santa Cruz wrote:On July 09 2012 19:45 Glurkenspurk wrote:The fact that in 2012 it's still socially acceptable to discriminate against homosexuals is fucking disgusting. Only because you live in a first world country. In many countries sexism is still acceptable, so is the death penalty. I know this is a controversial statement and I'm not saying I support it, but I genuinely believe that in the future pedophilia will become legal to some extent. Go back a few generations and Marilyn Monroe showing some leg was considered porn. Today we have teenagers wearing makeup and miniskirts and in general listening to pop songs about getting drunk and having promiscuous sex. It's only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered, firstly for younger teenagers (so an adult can't have sex with a younger teenager, but two younger teenagers can legally have sex with one another), and then eventually you can watch porn with two consenting younger teenagers, until finally anyone can have sex with younger teenagers due to more education surrounding sex and the rapid development of maturity of young teenagers. If you don't believe me, ask your grandparents whether it was conceivable that people would be having sex without being married, and with multiple partners. It was simply out of the question back in their time. Most of the stunt in progress has been due to religion and it's good to see Google pushing forward with a secularist agenda. Agreed. With a rationale of "legalize love" there is of course no reason not to allow one type of relationship that involves love and not allow another. This is a problem with the gay marriage movement and a question that I think has yet to be answered by those supporting it. consent has a lot to do with sex in america. minors are generally not seen as being able to legally consent to various things. the homosexual marriage issue is concerned with a consenual relationship b/w adults. as the law sees it, a minor cannot legally consent to a sexual relationship with an adult. if americans changed their views on consent then maybe but as i said, this concerns adults to a few other people, being afraid of homosexual pedophiles as a result of homosexual rights is ridiculous. it'd make more sense to be morally outraged at heterosexual marriage, as afaik heterosexual pedophilia is more common (note some ppl don't even label pedophiles as being homosexual or heterosexual, tho i don't think that makes much sense) That's a fair enough point, although I don't think we should be satisfied with the idea that the only thing stopping an older adult from having a sexual relationship with a young teen is the idea that the teen cannot legally consent. Accepting your point however we still run into problems with the "legalize love" rationale in stopping polygamy, or in stopping incestual relationships by consenting adults (and even if you argue that it's unhealthy for their potential children, that doesnt stop a same sex incestual relationship or a relationship by people who are sterile). My basic point is that the idea that we should be "legalizing love" doesn't really make any sense with the actual changes people want. Obviously most people aren't in favor of legalizing polygamy or incestual marriage, and since of those relationships involve love and are between consenting adults, how do you justify legalizing one but not the other? I really don't think there is a problem with consensual polygamy or consensual incest. There done now it's all justified legally. Not to mention the law at the moment clearly shows it doesn't have to make sense with straight people being fine to marry but gay people not. Sorry, but the standards by which society governs itself should be logically consistent. All I'm trying to say is that you can support gay marriage, but you're gonna need a better reason to do so than "legalize love". Otherwise we're gonna run into weird unintended consequences. As I said I have no problem with consensual relationships between any number of people of any number of genders or relation. It really doesn't matter to me as long as both parties are consenting and are of the legal age to consent. This is logically consistent. I was responding to your statement that "the law at the moment clearly shows it doesn't have to make sense". I disagree, it does need to make sense otherwise we have terrible laws. If you are in favor of those types of relationships having state sponsored marriage then you're right, you are logically consistent. But in the U.S. the gay marriage movement is about same sex unions between two people, and they specifically reject any notion that it opens the door to having marriage for other relaitionships. As a mainstream company, I assume Google mirrors this position. Thus, their statement of "legalizing love" is not logically consistent with the law they want passed. I think ''Legalizing love'' is just a slogan dude.
Some people tend to take things too literally. This case is a gross example of that.
AT&T's slogan is "Your World. Delivered." and that's not consistent with the required logistics of delivering an entire world.
|
On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied.
Should really old people be denied marriage? What about women who have had historectomies? These things are easily done, would you be in favor of this?
|
On July 09 2012 22:32 Elsid wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 22:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:12 HellRoxYa wrote:On July 09 2012 22:04 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 21:59 Zorkmid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the shit man? How does gay marriage lead to free pedophilia and rapist social security? See my above post. You mean gays in general? I only am against gay marriage not gay people. The reason it could is due to how things become normal and then people decide to change something else due to their bleeding heart ideology. Oh its wrong that we treat rapists that way, its not their fault they don't have a choice in how they act. DO YOU LITERALLY NOT SEE THIS BULLCRAP CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO LOGICS? I am saying it could happen and dammit there is a real possibility with how stupid people are becoming. Now what i am saying is that,we should let it stay at gay marriage debates and keep it there so we don't ever have to deal with this crap. Sounds great. The line isn't at gay marriage however, and once you realize that you also realize that you have no argument. And while I'm at it, pedophiles have human rights and, as they are human, they should have them. I would hope that you are confusing pedophiles with actively practicing pedophiles (that is, child rapists). A pedophile is someone who's sexual orientation means that they are attracted to kids. It does not mean that they act on it, or have acted on it. Even a rapist, of children or otherwise, still has basic human rights just like everyone else. Murderers should in general be given second chances as long as they are deemed rehabilitated and have served their term. Lastly, though, I'm sure this is how a lot of people argued for segregation. "Well, I think it should stay. I mean if we allow this, what's next? Gay people being okay?". Societal evolution is great and not something to be feared. Man andrew anders was right about being politically correct. Listen, you can believe or talk however you want. Due to my STANDARDS and the way i live. I cannot agree that child rapists should live, let alone have basic human rights.Murderers should have their lives taken from them as they have taken life from others.As far as political correctness goes, it can suck my dick. This is not how a society should be run in any way shape or form. I believe gay people have the right to be gay. That is their choice, and i have nothing against their choice except i believe it is wrong. Being gay although is like lying or having sex before marriage so its not like a big deal.If i support gay marriage i would support the fact that i believe it is correct and right to be gay when that goes against my very moral foundation. Yeah good luck being politically correct, dat marxism at work. i do agree with as long as they do not act on their sexual orientation they shouldn't lose their human rights. And pray tell what is your dim witted hair brained laughable obtuse half baked reasoning for why homosexual marriage is "wrong"?
While I do support gay marriage, there is historical support for societies in which pedophilia was allowed - Classical Greece and Rome, the two civilization who were closest to our own when it comes to really big civilizations with to much emphasis on hedonism.
Also - you guys really should be banned for the ways you are disrespecting another forum member, while the other guy's opinions seem to be mainly wrong from my point of view, he doesn't insult you guys and give you respect.
|
On July 09 2012 23:27 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. Should really old people be denied marriage? What about women who have had historectomies? These things are easily done, would you be in favor of this?
Again gays will never have children PERIOD. Now would i prefer that change as a single male. Maybe, but the problem is in the specifics of never ,and weird things have happened to where they have had kids.
|
On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied.
You misuse the word logic and you should look it up.
You only addressed a part of my post, leaving out the rest - which is convenient because your reasoning (not logic) won't fly high. If there should be monetary incentives to having kids, why would the government dump millions of dollars on couples that won't have kids? If those benefits come for parents with kids only, then they should apply when the kids are there.
But more importantly, there are plenty of kids in orphanages, locally and in other countries. Gay couples, research shows, are as capable of raising children as straight couples. And, because they can adopt babies, sometimes a gay couple WILL have more children than a straight couple. So, should it still be impossible for a gay couple to be married and to receive less money simply because YOU don't like them?
I'm sure you'll clumsily try to make your way out of that, and fail horribly.
|
decker247777 bases his opinion on what he thinks a supernatural being says. There is literally zero way to argue with someone who does this so I don't know why people would bother. In order to disprove their belief, you have to disprove their god, and good luck with that.
As for why unnecessary harm is wrong, it isn't objectively so, but then objective morality doesn't exist (even if there were supernatural beings, for the record). However, I want to live in a society that holds to the harm principle (among more nuanced philosophical beliefs) and that's enough for me to believe in it.
|
On July 09 2012 23:32 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2012 23:25 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:21 Djzapz wrote:On July 09 2012 23:19 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 23:09 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 22:59 decker247777 wrote:On July 09 2012 22:01 Elsid wrote:On July 09 2012 21:56 decker247777 wrote:
This is stupid. I recognize that people should have a choice in what they do, however, I do not have to accept that it is the correct or right thing to do.The main problem i see with gay marriage is all of a sudden it starts becoming more normal and not seen as taboo. This would literally not be cool with me in any way shape or form, due to how it could open up a world of bullcrap ,such as; age is just a number, pedophiles should have human rights, Rapists should get free benefits, murderers should get second chances, and so on and forth. I am not cool with this, let them be gay if they want to be gay, but as far as marriage goes, it should be left to a man and a woman only. Also, straight couples have a higher chance of having kids then a gay couple even with today's scientific advancements and adoption methods. What the fuck are you even saying, being gay has nothing to do with rape murder or pedophilia so first of all leave that out of your post. Second of all paragraphs are good , they make your writing easier to write , not that i think your writing has any merit as it stands as you're talking utter shite. Gay marriage =/= rapists get free benefits (whatever that means? benefits?) Gay marriage =/= murderers getting second chances (not that I see what's wrong with murderers who have been rehabilitated). Having children has nothing to do with this issue sterile people can be married so that automatically defeats that argument. Please before you post again consider thinking , reading , opening your mind , not making bullshit analogies. Thanks. Hi i heard you were a politically controlled noob. I hope you can actually form opinions without it being politically correct but with seeing how you agree that murderers should get a second chance that probably isn't going to happen. Now on to what i tried to say but kind of failed due to how its all over the place. Gay marriage is just another thing of political correctness. I despise political correctness with a passion therefore if it is against what i believe, i will stand against it.If it wasn't with political correctness would i stand against gay marriage, I honestly have no idea, but seeing as how that probably will never happen. Political correctness has tie ins with everything that could happen, i do not think gay marriage equals those thing but i believe what is the driving force behind it definitely could do that. So essentially what you're saying is that anyone who disagrees with you doesn't have a mind of their own? How novel, however I think you'll find that this is untrue and you're so full of shit that you're starting to believe yourself. Gay marriage has nothing to do with political correctness, it has to do with civil liberty, it has to do with being recognized as an equal in the eyes of government in your relationship. Consider what you say before you say it lest you want to be labeled as the dumbass that you are. Well, if your arguing with that, i guess i can share my viewpoint on that. Gay couples cannot have kids naturally therefore any benefit given to a married couple that can have kids naturally should not be given to a gay couple unless they adopt or otherwise do sperm donations or things of that nature. This is ridiculous at how they argue for equality yet do not even consider how straight couples can have any number of kids ,even with protection, they still can have an unexpected kid on the way due to mistakes or otherwise compromised condoms.Gay couples will never have to deal with this. So about equality do you really think they should share all the benefits? I don't, maybe some of them but definitely not all of them unless they adopt then sure. Should infertile straight couples lose benefits too because they can't have kids? Your viewpoint has one very specific flaw, gay couples will always not have kids. An infertile couple does not necessarily know they are infertile and even then weird things have happened to where supposedly infertile couples have had kids anyways.This main difference definitely cannot be over looked and therefore your logic is denied. You misuse the word logic and you should look it up. You only addressed a part of my post, leaving out the rest - which is convenient because your reasoning (not logic) won't fly high. If there should be monetary incentives to having kids, why would the government dump millions of dollars on couples that won't have kids? If those benefits come for parents with kids only, then they should apply when the kids are there. But more importantly, there are plenty of kids in orphanages, locally and in other countries. Gay couples, research shows, are as capable of raising children as straight couples. And, because they can adopt babies, sometimes a gay couple WILL have more children than a straight couple. So, should it still be impossible for a gay couple to be married and to receive less money simply because YOU don't like them? I'm sure you'll clumsily try to make your way out of that, and fail horribly.
Nah, its easy to look at something simple. Gay couples are never going to have kids just from them. Adoption are kids that have been the cause of natural reproduction as in they are already here. If i were a government i would dump millions of dollars into straight couples simply by the fact, the more kids we have the better our chances are in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
