On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
That's the same thing they said about negros. Supporting slaves, and giving them rights is stupid, right? They have no need to be like us, haha. What's next? Animals get their freedom to live freely aswell? Haha, this is a slippery slope.
On July 08 2012 18:36 TirramirooO wrote: Sick of talking about gay people.. Im not Christian, i dont believe in religion but that is totally the ANTICHRIST... With the same sex you cant make children soo is against nature but make people understant that is becoming hard.
Keep going, in the future you all gonna open your EYES.
Nature granted us with the free will - so why should nature care about some people not choosing to spread their DNA? Nature does not care about anything. Let them do what they want to do. They do no harm to anyone.
Google seems to be running out of ideas for getting publicity. This is a move that will alienate a good number of their users too. Nobody wants other people's opinion on social issues rammed down their throat. Pretty stupid move. Personally I don't care about the issue either way and will continue to use google but there are literally billions of people who would be offended by this.
Google wins all of the internets. Congrats and thanks to them for this.
Also, until marriage is nothing but a religious ceremony, I'm all for gay marriage. The day I don't have to state that I'm single or married on official paperwork (for benefits or any kind of purchase) will be the day I ask myself why gays need to be married..
On July 08 2012 20:38 Cutlery wrote: That's the same thing they said about negros. Supporting slaves, and giving them rights is stupid, right? They have no need to be like us, haha. What's next? Animals get their freedom to live freely aswell? Haha, this is a slippery slope.
Slavery isn't a pathology though. So your point is irrelevant.
On July 08 2012 20:39 bubblegumbo wrote: Google seems to be running out of ideas for getting publicity. This is a move that will alienate a good number of their users too. Nobody wants other people's opinion on social issues rammed down their throat. Pretty stupid move. Personally I don't care about the issue either way and will continue to use google but there are literally billions of people who would be offended by this.
I think Google controls too many aspects of most people's lives though. So even if people feel offended, they'll have to live with it. For example, I doubt offended people will permanently stop using Google as their primary search engine over this. Or throw out their Android devices, or delete their Gmail accounts, etc.
I hope OP updates his post to reflect the context of the government's stance on homosexuality in Singapore. The government does not oppose homosexuals or discriminate against them.
I think it's good that a company expresses some moral obligation towards their employees; trying to make sure that their employees aren't discriminated against whereever they may be currently working for google.
This isn't their entire reason to get politically active, but they have to be commended for it, for expressing a moral obligation to their workers.
On July 08 2012 20:38 Cutlery wrote: That's the same thing they said about negros. Supporting slaves, and giving them rights is stupid, right? They have no need to be like us, haha. What's next? Animals get their freedom to live freely aswell? Haha, this is a slippery slope.
Slavery isn't a pathology though. So your point is irrelevant.
Wait, discussing animal rights is relevant, but black rights is not? Slippery slope here my friend. Maybe only you are allowed to make examples. No matter how stupid.
Anyway, marriage isn't a pathology either. Nor is freedom or homosexuality. So it is you who are mistaken, and have so far not brought up anything remotely relevant.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
Why stop there? Why should marriage be between only two people? that's racist/discriminatory/human rights violation and antisemitism... at least! If I want to marry 3 women why cant I? They all gave there consent? If a 36 year old woman wants to marry her 15 year old son why cant she? In 20 years pedophilia and incest will be legalized, why should we be so close-minded now? What about a man and a goat, or should one person even be alive to marry?
This is stupid, this is a non-issue. In the US, 1 in 6 people, or almost 50 million Americans rely on food stamps, how many people die each year because of disease/war? Something like 8% of children drop out of school. NOOO, don't put money into education, suck up to the gay lobby, because it makes you look 'cool' and 'intellectual' to 'stick up' for gay people.
Stop pushing gay marriage and abortion down everybody's throats, seriously, like every thread 'gay marriage this/abortion that', give it a rest, yes we know you want to look the the savior of the universe, but please take your 'I am all-powerfull everyone-should-think-like-me-or-else-they-are-the-devil' somewhere else
On July 08 2012 20:38 Cutlery wrote: That's the same thing they said about negros. Supporting slaves, and giving them rights is stupid, right? They have no need to be like us, haha. What's next? Animals get their freedom to live freely aswell? Haha, this is a slippery slope.
Slavery isn't a pathology though. So your point is irrelevant.
Wait, discussing animal rights is relevant, but black rights is not? Slippery slope here my friend.
Like I said the animals rights example was to highlight a point. If you missed that read above. And secondly, yes, it's irrelevant, because also, like I said above slavery is not a pathology.
On July 08 2012 20:47 ahappystar wrote: Why stop there? Why should marriage be between only two people? that's racist/discriminatory/human rights violation and antisemitism... at least! If I want to marry 3 women why cant I? They all gave there consent? If a 36 year old woman wants to marry her 15 year old son why cant she? In 20 years pedophilia and incest will be legalized, why should we be so close-minded now? What about a man and a goat, or should one person even be alive to marry?
This is stupid, this is a non-issue. In the US, 1 in 6 people, or almost 50 million Americans rely on food stamps, how many people die each year because of disease/war? Something like 8% of children drop out of school. NOOO, don't put money into education, suck up to the gay lobby, because it makes you look 'cool' and 'intellectual' to 'stick up' for gay people.
Stop pushing gay marriage and abortion down everybody's throats, seriously, like every thread 'gay marriage this/abortion that', give it a rest, yes we know you want to look the the savior of the universe, but please take your 'I am all-powerfull everyone-should-think-like-me-or-else-they-are-the-devil' somewhere else
Now, this a post that everyone should read and understand. Well-said. Thanks for reminding the world of the real problems.
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
On July 08 2012 20:07 DonKey_ wrote: Hm I realy don't have any problem with gay marriage as long it is labeled "gay marriage" and not "marriage". It would only serve to confuse the situation if two separate instances of marriage (Hetero and Homo) were refered to as the same thing when a fundamental difference exists in them.
Of course all legal rights and privelages would be the same in each, I would just hope a distinction would be made between the two.
How is there a difference? Can you please elaborate? Marriage is a legal contract between two people who love each other. Be it two men, two women or a man and a woman.
Then why limit it at all? Why not man and donkey? Or woman and horse? Or a koala and a rhinoceros? Why not just let entropy and chaos take its course... screw the legal contracts.
Why stop there? Why should marriage be between only two people? that's racist/discriminatory/human rights violation and antisemitism... at least! If I want to marry 3 women why cant I? They all gave there consent? If a 36 year old woman wants to marry her 15 year old son why cant she? In 20 years pedophilia and incest will be legalized, why should we be so close-minded now? What about a man and a goat, or should one person even be alive to marry?
This is stupid, this is a non-issue. In the US, 1 in 6 people, or almost 50 million Americans rely on food stamps, how many people die each year because of disease/war? Something like 8% of children drop out of school. NOOO, don't put money into education, suck up to the gay lobby, because it makes you look 'cool' and 'intellectual' to 'stick up' for gay people.
Stop pushing gay marriage and abortion down everybody's throats, seriously, like every thread 'gay marriage this/abortion that', give it a rest, yes we know you want to look the the savior of the universe, but please take your 'I am all-powerfull everyone-should-think-like-me-or-else-they-are-the-devil' somewhere else
Ok but, if ending poverty takes precedent, I propose no one be allowed to get legally married until poverty is ended.
Also, they prolly don't wanna look like the saviours of the universe; I think they'd rather want to get married. Don't you?
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
What about if a brother wants to marry his sister, they are older than 18 and both consentient?
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
You think the concept of man and man marrying is equally as stupid as the concept of man and donkey marrying. Why?
If you're wondering, I do understand the concept of an "opinion". I just think that opinions should not be free to ignore the shackles of factuality or logic.
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
What about if a brother wants to marry his sister, they are older than 18 and both consentient?
They already live together and fu*k together. They can try to get married as is; one of them changes their name and hopefully no one will notice haha. But why do you care about incest so much? ..The rights of one group can't be denied based upon the fact that there are "groups" without the same rights. If anything, gays should be equated with law abiding citizens, and not with pseudo criminals.
On July 08 2012 20:21 Liquid`Drone wrote: I'm sorry, are you some sort of moron? In what way does an agreement between two consenting adults in any way resemble "man and donkey"?
No, I'm not a moron. I'm using the argument to try and show how I perceive the argument for same-sex marriage to look like. The concept of two individuals of the same sex to marry was (until recently, because of initiatives like this) so foreign a concept that it was almost the equivalent of my current proposition of allowing two animals to marry. That's just how see it. I'm not enforcing the view upon anyone. Just trying to show how I see it by way of a stupid example... because I think the concept being supported is equally stupid. And I'm not even religious... Lol.
Marriage is a contract. Contracts are built on informed consent. Gays can make it, animals can't. What you think doesn't make any sense.
What about if a brother wants to marry his sister, they are older than 18 and both consentient?
That is absolutely fine by me. I would expect their doctor to inform them of the medical risks should they wish to reproduce but that's a medical rather than legal issue.
You guys that seem so upset about this for some reason... nobody will force you into gay marriage, promise! Unless that's what you really want of course.
EPT
