Google Announces Campaign to Legalize Gay Marriage - Page 38

On July 13 2012 04:56 Starshaped wrote:


Do you then also think we would stone people who work on the Sabbath? After all, the old rules apparently still apply. Also, my kid talked back to me today so I'll just go ahead and put him to death, since, y'know, that's what the bible tells me to do.

On July 13 2012 05:03 Joedaddy wrote:


Personally, I don't work on Sunday's. Never have and hopefully never will. If there were a debate on working on Sundays then I would put my 2 cents in and encourage my politicians etc etc etc.

On July 13 2012 05:00 Starshaped wrote:


Why don't you push for working on the Sabbath to be illegal then? Or any of the many sins of the bible we commit every single day? Maybe because the one about homosexuals is easy for you to go against... I don't see anyone doing this, so yes, it is cherry-picking.

Again, you clearly are meddling in the lives of consenting adults when you want to take away their rights, lol.

On July 13 2012 04:51 sc2superfan101 wrote:

mmm... i suppose one could make that argument. in fact, i don't really have much to say against it. i mean, from my point of view, it's not mean (and it's not just cause of some book)... but i could be wrong. maybe it is just "a book" and maybe it is mean.

but i think there is a difference between being intentionally mean and being unintentionally mean. if im being mean by not supporting gay marriage, than i guess im sorry for being mean. i hope if i am that i learn someday and stop doing it.



im not sure if i should respond because it's kind of off-topic i think, but i have two small problems:

just because Christ didn't tell us specifically that a thing was wrong doesn't mean that the thing isn't wrong. and i tend to think it's more along the lines of: if he didn't tell us specifically that the old rules were not applicable, than they are still applicable.

and the other problem i have is that i don't think that is what he meant by "judge not".

On July 13 2012 05:11 BobbyT wrote:


This is a common argument for gay marriage but it severely misses the point of what the gay marriage movement is trying to do.

This is a debate about standards. Both sides want a different standard for what constitutes a valid marriage. Gay marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting adults, and traditional marriage activists want a standard that includes two consenting, one male and one female adults. The important thing to remember that BOTH sides want a standard.

Standards are inherently unfair. But every society has standards for all sorts of behavior or allowable actions. Blind people or people with chronic seizures are not allowed a driving liscence. Color blind people are not allowed to be fighter pilots in the Air force. These are all unfair, but we want these standards because proper standards make for a better society.

The debate about marriage is not about people "meddling" or "being unfair" with gays, both sides of the debate, by nature of wanting a standard for marriage at all are guilty of being unfair to some group or person to whom the standard will exclude.

The real debate is about what standard forms the best society and why. People need to talk about that and not about this religious stuff, etc.

On July 13 2012 04:56 Joedaddy wrote:


Who's cherrypicking? I've never once said on these forums that "this" sin is greater than "that" sin. I've never once (and never will) say that I'm holier than thou, better than, or with less sin than a gay person.

Gay marriage has implications that go beyond the personal bubble of the gay couple. I'm not meddling in any consenting adults' personal lives, but in a country where democracy is the order of the day, I have a right to encourage our elected officials to vote in a way that represents the America I want to see.

And in a forum that promotes contrasting beliefs/ideas/opinions I think its safe for both sides of this debate, and every other debate, to share their thoughts with one another without belittling each other.

Also:



Choosing not to support something =/= judging.

On July 13 2012 05:14 Crushinator wrote:


What? Denying blind people a driver's license is unfair? They can't competently operate a vehicle, what is unfair about that?

On July 13 2012 05:12 AdamBanks wrote:


I dunno, I prefer the 10 commandments to the 613 Mitzvot's.

"When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. "

Colossians 2:13-14

Cant believe I'm writing this while tsl is on -.-

On July 13 2012 05:16 BobbyT wrote:


It's unfair because the vast majority of blind people have not chosen to be blind, were born that way, or had some unfortunate accident. They have done nothing, yet we deprive them of the same rights that we give to others. That is basically pure unfairness.

On July 13 2012 05:17 Crushinator wrote:


I strongly disagree with the definition of fairness you seem to have come up with.

On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:



You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.

On July 13 2012 05:21 Elsid wrote:


That is an absolutely ridiculous line of argument considering they can't pass a test to get a drivers license.

On July 13 2012 05:23 BobbyT wrote:


My whole point is that we have a test in the first place. A drivers test unfairly excludes those who by no fault of their own, due to some physical condition are unable to pass. Yet we still have a test because making sure we have competent drivers is more important than preventing unfairness.

I think it is a bit amusing that people are so troubled by my pointing out how we are unfair in all sorts of ways.

On July 13 2012 05:19 BobbyT wrote:



You think that treating people differently based upon characteristics which they had no choice over is not unfair? I don't know what is unfair if that is not.

On July 13 2012 05:26 Elsid wrote:



What are you talking about? Driving is a privilege not a right, you cannot drive on public roads if you're going to endanger other people through incompetence that's not unfair in any manner whatsoever. If anything allowing blind people to drive would be unfair on the people they share the road with.

I'm sure we're unfair in many ways but that is one of them.

On July 13 2012 05:33 BobbyT wrote:


This is some weird pretzel logic here. So it's not unfair to deny the privilege of driving to a blind person, even though it's not their fault, because they cannot pass a test which we have crafted, which is designed so that blind people cannot pass....

What is unfair then?

On July 13 2012 05:27 Crushinator wrote:


I think the rule ''People that are competent drivers, should be allowed to operate a vehicle, and those that are not competent drivers, should not'' is a reasonable rule. It discriminates based on a reasoning process that is undeniably necessary.

Denying a group of people that logically cannot be competent, is fair in that it is consistent with this rule. If all the individuals in a group would be denied the right to drive for reasons other than competency, that would be unfair. FOr example Saudi-Arabian women.