Why Is Gay Marriage Wrong? - Page 18 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-16-2008, 01:19 AM   #256
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by melon


In other news, this is completely irrelevant. The mob also hates Mormons; yet, I don't see you changing your faith for the whims of the "majority."


define "mob"
are you talking about the Mafia?

Or are you infering that the will of the people as equivilent to "The Mob"?

And what does that have to do with Freedom of Religion in our country?

And how does sexuality equate to one's religious convictions or the definition of the word "marriage" figure into this at all?

I've stated that I'm ok Gay unions so what's the fuss?

That's right until you change or redefine the meaning of a certain word -your movement is stalled.

Kind of stupid -don't you think?

So, is this more about having your civil rights or a tantrum over the meaning of a word that you can't accept?

<>
__________________

__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 01:31 AM   #257
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:18 AM
this exhausts me, but if you switch the poll question slightly and throw civil unions into the mix, you get a majority of Americans who support legal recognition for gay relationships.

the mainstream, all-American position is that gay people should have access to a civil union that would contain the same rights as marriage.

and here's the critical point in that poll:

[q]Opposition to gay marriage is most pronounced among older Americans, with more than two-thirds (67%) of those age 65 and older opposed to legalizing same-sex marriage. On the other hand, roughly half of all adults under age 30 (49%) favor allowing gay and lesbian couples to wed. [/q]

i'm sorry you're, again, on the wrong side of history and humanity, diamond.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 01:37 AM   #258
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
this exhausts me, but if you switch the poll question slightly and throw civil unions into the mix, you get a majority of Americans who support legal recognition for gay relationships.

hug:
Which I said i was ok with.

So the problem is you demand that the gay nupitals be called "marriage" when the majority of citizens are more comfortable calling it a "union".

So, what's the issue?

The issue is your folks aren't after anything more than an agrument over the meaning of the word marriage.

<>

A Vespa isn't a motorcycle no matter how close you want to argue the 2 are.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 01:42 AM   #259
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond


Which I said i was ok with.

So the problem is you demand that he be called "marrige" when the majority of citizens are more comfortable calling it "union".

So, what's the issue?

The issue is your folks aren't after anything more than an agrument over the meaning of the word marriage.

<.


the issue is we want to have the same tools to build strong relationships and families that you do. a civil union is one way, but marriage is a better way. why make such a distinction? why is that so precious to you? why are you so insecure about it? what's going to happen if two men become married? what worries you so much, my pet?

the issue is that you people seem to need yet another way to make yourselves feel better about your shortcomings and failures, and so, you choose to kick an already marginalized group, and then ask them to thank you for not stepping on their throats, as if i should be so grateful to you for not letting me have ice cream, but here you go, pet, have a peppermint patty.

what else do you want? sure, you can have a ceremony, but absolutely no clinking of the wine glasses lest the two men kiss. that's only what *married* people are allowed to do. and none of this "first dance" stuff either -- it's weird for us to watch two women dance cheek-to-cheek, and then what do they do? do the brides then dance with each other's fathers? what about the mothers! just too strange -- so, no, let's ban that.

could you write out a list of things i am and am not entitled to? after all, they are yours to give me.

thanks, sweet pea.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 01:52 AM   #260
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




the issue is we want to have the same tools to build strong relationships and families that you do. a civil union is one way, but marriage is a better way. why make such a distinction? why is that so precious to you? why are you so insecure about it? what's going to happen if two men become married? what worries you so much, my pet?

the issue is that you people seem to need yet another way to make yourselves feel better about your shortcomings and failures, and so, you choose to kick an already marginalized group, and then ask them to thank you for not stepping on their throats, as if i should be so grateful to you for not letting me have ice cream, but here you go, pet, have a peppermint patty.

what else do you want? sure, you can have a ceremony, but absolutely no clinking of the wine glasses lest the two men kiss. that's only what *married* people are allowed to do. and none of this "first dance" stuff either -- it's weird for us to watch two women dance cheek-to-cheek, and then what do they do? do the brides then dance with each other's fathers? what about the mothers! just too strange -- so, no, let's ban that.

could you write out a list of things i am and am not entitled to? after all, they are yours to give me.

thanks, sweet pea.
have your holy matrimony ceremony anyway you see fit.

the grooms exchange rings, do a first dance, i will do the toast etc etc etc.

the reason i won't call it something that's not is the same reason i wont call a zebra a horse.

also it's for the margialized cpls' own protection.

if gay cpls are being discriminated against it will be easier to track if they have or have not the exact same govt benefits afforded to traditional married folk.


if everbody is "married" then ppl will have to start proving if they are gay or not and once they prove their gayness then they will have to establish how they were shorted benifits.

I'm trying to streamline future headaches.

If out of the box we understand it's a gay partnership from the get go, by calling it something other than marriage it will save a lot of time if there is a claim of withholding of govt benifits.

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 02:22 AM   #261
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:18 AM

Also to make it easier on the Govermental Census Bureau.


You guys are out of the closet, so call it what it is- instead of what it isn't and that way the govt will be able to assist you more-if needed.

That is what you want, protection of your rights, correct?

How can they help protect you when you're claiming something that you're not-a male and female by camouflaging your uinon with a word it is not?


<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 03:58 AM   #262
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon
This entire "bisexual polygamy" argument ignores one factor:

It's incredibly insulting to bisexuals.

That is, they're often looked upon with great suspicion that they are incapable of being monogamous by both the gay and straight communities. To argue that bisexuals can only be served properly through polygamy is truly insulting to those who are bisexual and are very capable of being monogamous to whichever partner they choose to be with. I haven't seen any indication that even a sizable minority of bisexuals are interested in a polygamy.
:Yes:

Isn't it kind of like arguing "Well, I like brunettes AND blondes, shouldn't I then be able to marry both?"

Just because someone is attracted to more than one kind of person (whatever that might mean up to and including different gender) that in no way makes them bound to marry both (or more) of those kinds. Marriage is about CHOOSING ONE person and choosing to disregard attractions to others from there on out.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 07:55 AM   #263
Blue Crack Addict
 
MrsSpringsteen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Posts: 24,974
Local Time: 07:18 AM
No answer

Oh well..

Also I can't believe so many of the things you have posted here diamond
__________________
MrsSpringsteen is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 08:00 AM   #264
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,655
Local Time: 06:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

The issue is your folks aren't after anything more than an agrument over the meaning of the word marriage.
This is all you have, a definition, something you refuse to acknowledge can and has been changed.

As for your other "attempts" at arguments, absolutely discusting. You should be ashamed, I hope you are...
__________________
BVS is online now  
Old 04-16-2008, 08:22 AM   #265
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,334
Local Time: 04:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond

also it's for the margialized cpls' own protection.


__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 08:53 AM   #266
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
define "mob"
are you talking about the Mafia?

Or are you infering that the will of the people as equivilent to "The Mob"?
"The Will of the People?" Well, aren't you the Marxist populist, all of a sudden.

An advanced democracy balances the inalienable rights of the minority with the will of the majority. Those that don't end up being repressive nations with sectarian problems, no matter how many "elections" they hold.

Quote:
And what does that have to do with Freedom of Religion in our country?

And how does sexuality equate to one's religious convictions or the definition of the word "marriage" figure into this at all?
I see how it goes. You hide yourself in "Freedom of Religion," because you have no other way around the fact that the mob hates Mormons, and if they had their way, would probably ban them as heretics. The mob also doesn't think that you're Christian either.

But isn't that how it goes? One hated minority doesn't use their shared experience of prejudice to help out other minorities. No, instead, they try and make an appeal to the ruling hegemony by saying, "See? We hate most of the same people you hate too, so let us play too!"

Quote:
I've stated that I'm ok Gay unions so what's the fuss?

That's right until you change or redefine the meaning of a certain word -your movement is stalled.

Kind of stupid -don't you think?

So, is this more about having your civil rights or a tantrum over the meaning of a word that you can't accept?
"What's the fuss?" Gee...I'm sorry if I confuse that "support" with downright hostility. You have a pattern of saying that you're supportive then coupling it with bigoted comments that include the worst of offensive stereotypes.

You don't know how many times I'd like to tell you to go fuck yourself every day.

But no, the way the moderators rule around here, somehow that four letter word carries more weight than post after post after post of offensive homophobic bullshit. So, for the official record, I'm not going to say it.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 08:54 AM   #267
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Also to make it easier on the Govermental Census Bureau.


You guys are out of the closet, so call it what it is- instead of what it isn't and that way the govt will be able to assist you more-if needed.

That is what you want, protection of your rights, correct?

How can they help protect you when you're claiming something that you're not-a male and female by camouflaging your uinon with a word it is not?
Nope, I'm not going to say it at all.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 09:08 AM   #268
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Tempe, Az USA
Posts: 12,856
Local Time: 05:18 AM

Feel better?

Plus it's no secret that you despise Chritianity and other sects of Unorthodox Christianity such as Mormons that don't think *exactly* the way you think -based on your posts.



You've even tried to use Mormons as a correlation for your cause, when in fact you despise them.

So Melon, who's the hater ?

<>
__________________
diamond is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 09:16 AM   #269
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Feel better?
I'd feel much better if you were banned for the troll that you are.
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-16-2008, 09:30 AM   #270
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:18 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by diamond
Plus it's no secret that you despise Chritianity and other sects of Unorthodox Christianity such as Mormons that don't think *exactly* the way you think -based on your posts.

So Melon, who's the hater, who's the bigot?
There's a rather conservative book out there called, "The Closing of the American Mind," by the late Allan Bloom. It was written over 20 years ago at this point, but it's funny how most of its observations about the decay of America and American education are still very relevant.

One contention that I very much agree with is the absolute nonsense of moral and ethical relativity, inasmuch as it creates logical paradoxes. One of the most prominent, as Bloom writes, is the illogic of "tolerance." As defined by relativism, one is expected to "tolerate intolerance," or otherwise, they're not a very good liberal. But, if you are capable of reasoning (which I think is questionable, at this point), I'm pretty sure you can see that "tolerating intolerance" is reprehensibly inane.

As such, I do not tolerate religious organizations that hold positions of sheer homophobia and bigotry. And why should I? You've certainly proven yourself, as a Mormon, of being completely incapable of looking at homosexuals in a non-offensive light. And, not only that, but you seem to be proud of it! That, as a given then, how the hell do you have the gall to try and argue that you, instead, are the victim here?

So, go ahead, try and bullshit your way out of this one. But let's get one thing straight: if we strip out all the moral and ethical relativity here and remove the cloak of "religious freedom" that you so tightly wear to justify and excuse away your prejudices, that's when it becomes completely unavoidable that you're a bigot.

And I'm sorry. It is my moral and ethical imperative not to tolerate bigotry. Period.
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:18 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com