#41  
Old 07-08-2012, 12:11 PM
Not my fault his father beat him. Still makes him weak. My mom used to beat me. But I didn't kill myself.

I don't care why anyone kills themselves. It is a cowardly thing to do.
  #42  
Old 07-08-2012, 12:21 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473 View Post
Everyone is born straight. Like I said it is unnatural to be gay.
Wow. Tell us more, Mr. Science!

No, wait, I forgot -- you hate science. Sorry about that...
  #43  
Old 07-08-2012, 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid Vicious View Post
Wow. Tell us more, Mr. Science!

No, wait, I forgot -- you hate science. Sorry about that...
Didn't say I hate science. I like science. But it doesn't hold all the answers that some want it to.
  #44  
Old 07-08-2012, 01:04 PM
Spoken like a true loving Christian. You guys never fail to dissapoint. Did your mother cut you with razors and break your arms too?
  #45  
Old 07-08-2012, 01:10 PM
The Jesus you represent would be embarrassed of you. You need to work on the nonjudgment part.
  #46  
Old 07-08-2012, 10:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473 View Post
Science has THEORIES. They are not FACT. Science has proven SHIT.
To say this, you have proven you know absolutely nothing about the scientific process.

You are truly living in a box and I honestly feel sorry for that. Please open a book besides the bible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473 View Post
This is why I hate the internet.
The internet won't miss you.

But before you go; please post more of your thoughts on how the world works. We haven't had a fervent bible-thumper in the Politics forum since Lynn. It's making me gitty...
  #47  
Old 07-08-2012, 11:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
To say this, you have proven you know absolutely nothing about the scientific process.

You are truly living in a box and I honestly feel sorry for that. Please open a book besides the bible.



The internet won't miss you.

But before you go; please post more of your thoughts on how the world works. We haven't had a fervent bible-thumper in the Politics forum since Lynn. It's making me gitty...
I understand insults and I understand Bias.

And I no longer give a fuck.
  #48  
Old 07-09-2012, 03:51 AM
It's quite clear you understand very little when you can make unfounded generalizations about an entire group of people, and then choose to be offended when your beliefs are questioned.i'm not bitter about religion because of its views on homosexuality alone, but also because it makes no sense. I'm quite glad I went to Bible school, because it allowed me to see how people such as yourself can do and say whatever they want and excuse it by praying it away. I don't need an invisible sky bully to make me a good person. I save lives every day as an intensive care nurse and treat others like I would want to be treated. If that's not enough for me to get into heaven the I don't want to go. Me and the Buddhist monk will be chilling in hell while you and Jeffrey Dahmer can have your heaven.
  #49  
Old 07-09-2012, 03:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flimmaker1473 View Post
I understand insults and I understand Bias.

And I no longer give a fuck.
Not quite sure where the insult came from. As for bias, I was brought up as Roman Catholic so I've experienced what it's like to see and believe within a theological framework. I came out of it when I went to university and experienced an epistemological wonderland of critical thought. I can only recommend that you do the same.

By the way, "not giving a fuck" is admitting defeat. Rather than saying "it's in the bible, so it has to be true", why not give a clear explanation to your reasons for being intolerant?
  #50  
Old 07-12-2012, 05:22 PM
Flimmaker1473 seems like an intelligent and classy gent. Nice, bro, telling someone that their deceased friend was weak to kill himself.

Oh, and in regards to the "being gay is a choice" thing, well . . . http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gay_gen...n_and_lesbians

Oh, but I forgot, science is stupid and useless.
  #51  
Old 07-12-2012, 06:04 PM
It's not the first time I've heard that from fundamentalists. Although I think it takes a lot of guts to slit your wrists and your throat. Like filmmaker said, we all make choices. His was to end his life before his father did after returning from conversion camp unchanged.
  #52  
Old 07-12-2012, 10:38 PM
Yeah, but as someone who has tried suicide, I can say that at the time, it seems like the only feasible option. It's not like depressed people are saying, "There's another way to end this misery, but killing myself is easier." No, when you're depressed, it's the ONLY thing you can do to end it, at least in your mind. So I don't see it as weak, I see it as a misguided dip in judgment, which is understandable.
  #53  
Old 07-13-2012, 02:43 PM
I completely agree with you. I've contemplated suicide before as well, and at the time, it does seem like the only choice.I don't blame my friend at all, because I'm positive his dad would have killed him anyways. He was a piece of shit who couldn't even muster up one good thing to say about him at the funeral. I honestly think he was happy he didn't have to deal with his gay son. My friend is at peace now.
  #54  
Old 07-14-2012, 10:39 PM
Hopefully we will one day live in a world where that kind of stuff doesn't have to happen. Sadly, as long as people indoctrinate their children with narrow-minded hate and ignorance, there's nothing to be done.
  #55  
Old 09-28-2012, 09:28 PM
Well in Australai you still will not be reconized as a married couple even if you marry overseas

In Australia the govermnet has been down this path and when voted it is never passed through

The Australian goverment beleives that a marriage is between a man and woman not a same sex couple

In tasmania the state voted and too many were against this type of thing so the same it was not passed through

What l dont get is why so many people are against this type of thing in parliment

But if you would ask me if l would support same sex marrige l would say yes

If it makes a couple happy l would support this type of thing

Last edited by Bondgirl; 09-28-2012 at 09:30 PM..
  #56  
Old 09-28-2012, 10:18 PM
Here is my opinion on gay marriage.

I have nothing against gay people. This is a state issue. If the people of a state want to call a legal relationship between the same sex a marriage and it is the will of the people, then marriage is what we call it.

If it comes up for a vote and it defeated, then the will of the people who live in that state have every right to not call a legal relationship between the same sex a marriage.

Personally, who the fuck cares what a legal relationship is called. Civil unions give the same rights and priviledges as a marriage, then that should be good enough for all. What is so wrong with hetro unions being called a marriage and gay union being called a civil union? Gay people should stop being such assholes and thinking they are being treated differently than other reg couples. For the last few thousand years, a marriage was between a man and a woman. period. I am not going to call a gay couple a hetro couple. They are a gay couple and more power to them and good luck, go adobt babies, ect, but they are still a gay couple. That is how we label them in society. Get over it
  #57  
Old 09-28-2012, 10:27 PM
Well l do feel that marriage is between women and men but things are changing and also values are changing where you have to except change

But you will still have gay women and men marching wanting there right to some exstent

I wonder when Australia will change the law

Also Erroneous how many American state have passed the gay marriage law
  #58  
Old 09-28-2012, 11:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Here is my opinion on gay marriage.

I have nothing against gay people. This is a state issue. If the people of a state want to call a legal relationship between the same sex a marriage and it is the will of the people, then marriage is what we call it.

If it comes up for a vote and it defeated, then the will of the people who live in that state have every right to not call a legal relationship between the same sex a marriage.
  #59  
Old 09-29-2012, 08:34 AM
I honestly don't understand how this is still an issue. If someone of the same sex wants to get married and have it be called a 'marriage', not a civil union, then what harm is coming from that? I'd say most people that oppose same-sex marriage are being fueled by their religious beliefs which they think is solely classified between a man and a woman, well, this isn't a religious based state, it's a secular one. So this entire idea that we should base the concept of marriage off of some book that a majority of people in this country believe, that means everyone else should go with it too. But as the post by Badbird above me suggests, this is going to be one of those issues that future generations will say "Why the hell did it take them so long to get over their ignorance?"
  #60  
Old 09-29-2012, 08:51 AM
The will of the people shape the domestic policies of a country, that is true. But the will to inhibit the rights of another is not a right, it's tyranny.

This is why I'm in favour of a society ruled by philosopher-kings...
  #61  
Old 09-29-2012, 09:01 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
That is just the dumbest thing ever.

I never said two people of the same sex can not or should not be together. All I said was marriage is for a man and a woman and civil union is for two people of the same sex. There is nothing wrong with calling it two different names. Both afford the same rights. I am sorry you can not respect the opinion of people who do not think as you do. It is a word. Gay people should understand that my marriage is not the same as their marriage and it warrants being called a different name.
  #62  
Old 09-29-2012, 09:28 AM
Marriage, while some would say is religious in nature, is predominantly a legal affair. Right now in 'merica the legal definition is being disputed, and there are obvious parallels to racism. The backwards notion of limiting "marriage" being between a man and a woman is no different than the racist bigots who didn't think blacks were considered "people" back in the 50's.

It's a legal term which provides any two people the state-recognized ability to fuck up their lives together and live in unhappiness until they get divorced.
  #63  
Old 09-29-2012, 09:55 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vong View Post
Marriage, while some would say is religious in nature, is predominantly a legal affair. Right now in 'merica the legal definition is being disputed, and there are obvious parallels to racism. The backwards notion of limiting "marriage" being between a man and a woman is no different than the racist bigots who didn't think blacks were considered "people" back in the 50's.

It's a legal term which provides any two people the state-recognized ability to fuck up their lives together and live in unhappiness until they get divorced.
We can stick to the legal definition and leave religion out of it since that does not matter since it is politicians making up the laws. What you say is true, but only for those in the minority who are totally against gay people. The majority are people like me that have no issue with gay people, but just want the two different unions to be called different things. To people like me, it is like calling a girl a girl and a boy a boy. If girls want to be called boys, it is not going to happen. I am not talking about transgenders, which is a totally dif topic. lol

What happened in the 50's is not the same at all. To the hardcore people, who just hate gay people in every way, it is the same. But like I said, those people are in the minority. Most people have no issue with gay people mainly, because everyone knows someone who is gay and likes them. Everyone has a gay friend, cousin, brother, sister, ect. Civil unions do not limit marriage. All the same rights and priviledges are afforded for all. Gay people do not even call their spouse a spouse. They say "my partner" and everyone on both sides is cool with that. Gay people do not want a different word, because they want to believe that what they are doing is the same is everyone else. They are not. All people like me ask is to call a standard type relationship between and man and a woman, a marriage and a same sex relationship to be called a civil union. I, we, are not looking down on gay people or trying to making it seem like a civil union is not as good. For the legal definition, it has to be called different things, because they are not the same. There needs to be some sort of way to distingish between the two.
  #64  
Old 09-29-2012, 10:53 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
There is nothing wrong with calling it two different names.
Yes there is. You are creating a "separate but equal" situation by saying your union is not as good as my union because we can use the word everyone normally uses for marriage, and your union isn't really a "marriage."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
We can stick to the legal definition and leave religion out of it since that does not matter since it is politicians making up the laws.
Okay then, we'll simply call all marriages, straight or gay, "civil unions." After all, "marriage" is a religious word, so let's leave it out of government, okay?
  #65  
Old 09-29-2012, 01:09 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
Yes there is. You are creating a "separate but equal" situation by saying your union is not as good as my union because we can use the word everyone normally uses for marriage, and your union isn't really a "marriage."
NO, you are. I say marriage is equal to civil union. One is for straight couples and one is for gay couples. You are the one saying Civil union is not a marriage. I never said they were not equal, but they are not the same.

Legally, a straight couple could be living together for X amount of years and never marry and be a civil union. There are not issues there. They are the only ones who can complain about what most people want.



Quote:
Okay then, we'll simply call all marriages, straight or gay, "civil unions." After all, "marriage" is a religious word, so let's leave it out of government, okay?
That was not my point and you know it. I was leaving religion out of it. If you want to go religious, gay people are out of luck entirely.
  #66  
Old 09-29-2012, 02:59 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Personally, who the fuck cares what a legal relationship is called. Civil unions give the same rights and priviledges as a marriage, then that should be good enough for all. What is so wrong with hetro unions being called a marriage and gay union being called a civil union? Gay people should stop being such assholes and thinking they are being treated differently than other reg couples. For the last few thousand years, a marriage was between a man and a woman. period. I am not going to call a gay couple a hetro couple. They are a gay couple and more power to them and good luck, go adobt babies, ect, but they are still a gay couple. That is how we label them in society. Get over it
I have no problems with civil unions being separate from marriage so long as they give the same rights. The problem is, they don't.

http://www.glad.org/uploads/docs/pub...s-marriage.pdf

Civil unions aren't federally recognized like marriages are and don't have a lot of the benefits that heterosexual marriages.

Personally I think marriage should be abolished on a federal level and everyone, heterosexual or homosexual, can have civil unions with federal benefits. Any heterosexuals who want to get a religious marriage in a church can do so, but it will add no extra benefits and won't affect their legal standing whatsoever.
  #67  
Old 09-30-2012, 01:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
NO, you are. I say marriage is equal to civil union. One is for straight couples and one is for gay couples.
That is just mind-numbingly stupid. If it's the same thing, why call it two different things? The only reason to do that is out of deference to religious crybabies who get bent out of shape over the word "marriage" - that's it. There is simply no argument for calling it a civil union instead of marriage if it is actually the same thing, which has been pointed out that it isn't.
  #68  
Old 09-30-2012, 01:33 PM
Men today are not really men. They are about 75% male and 25% female.
  #69  
Old 09-30-2012, 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Colyer View Post
Men today are not really men. They are about 75% male and 25% female.
My half an ovary has been bugging me lately. A doctor told me to just deal with it and I told him to suck my one and a half balls. Perhaps that was a bit rude.
  #70  
Old 09-30-2012, 01:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Badbird View Post
That is just mind-numbingly stupid. If it's the same thing, why call it two different things? The only reason to do that is out of deference to religious crybabies who get bent out of shape over the word "marriage" - that's it. There is simply no argument for calling it a civil union instead of marriage if it is actually the same thing, which has been pointed out that it isn't.
That is just mind-numbingly stupid???? You should open your mind and start thinking then.

It is called two different things, because straight people who are married don't want gay people to call their relationship the same thing. It is that simple.





IN NJ, civil unions give the same rights and priviledges as marriage. It is up to the how the state rights up or updates the laws. As for the Federal part.... it is a state issue. I suggest if you are in a gay civil union, you don't live in a state that does not allow for it. It is almost the same thing as the obortion or the death penalty.
  #71  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
It is called two different things, because straight people who are married don't want gay people to call their relationship the same thing. It is that simple.
Yes, and this is generally referred to as "bigotry".
  #72  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:19 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Squid Vicious View Post
Yes, and this is generally referred to as "bigotry".
NO, it is not. Maybe some might feel this way, but I have nothing against gay marriages. I don't think it should be called the same thing. Just because you do not agree with someone's ideas does not automatically make that person a bigot, a racist, a sexist or any other ist. Those things are for people who have an irrational hate for the other side of an issue.

What you are doing is just painting everyone a nice name that makes your opinion seem better and smarter to make you feel better about your opinion. You are doing what the liberal media loves to do and just make the other side seem like horrible people and it is wrong.

A car is a car. A truck is a truck. Both are motorized vehicles and I have driven both of them, but they are two different kinds of vehicles.
  #73  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
That is just mind-numbingly stupid???? You should open your mind and start thinking then.

It is called two different things, because straight people who are married don't want gay people to call their relationship the same thing. It is that simple.





IN NJ, civil unions give the same rights and priviledges as marriage. It is up to the how the state rights up or updates the laws. As for the Federal part.... it is a state issue. I suggest if you are in a gay civil union, you don't live in a state that does not allow for it. It is almost the same thing as the obortion or the death penalty.
So you just proved that civil unions are not equal to marriages. People would be in an OUTRAGE if certain states were able to ban marriage, so why is it not a big deal if certain states ban civil unions?
  #74  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:29 PM
I just spent some time going over this entire thread and realized one thing. The people who are against gay marriage are the ones who continually have to say things like "Personally I don't give a shit" or "Who really cares, it doesn't bother me". You don't realize it but you are using this as a defense mechanism to try to justify your belief/argument of whatever it is you are trying to say. As long as you are not hurting anyone than you have the absolute right to have your own opinion. Not everyone is going to agree and that is why this is one of the real hot topics in our society that government figureheads love to dangle in front of us before election time just to try and bring emotion out of the slow-minded voters so they can secure their vote. This is a topic that should be at the bottom of the list when it comes to what is really going on in our world. It is such an insignificant thing to argue about that it's frustrating to see that it still gains so much attention. Yes, there is an issue with Man + Woman = Marriage compared to Man + Man or Woman + Woman = Civil Union. It is not the people who point this out that are the problem, it is the people who want a different name FOR THE EXACT SAME CONCEPT that are being obtuse. Just because "Webster's Dictionary" uses man and woman in their definition doesn't solve the argument here. Words and their definitions have changed due to the fact that we are in a constantly changing (evolving) world. I'm not asking you to change the definition of Solid to: the status of being liquid. It's certainly not that extreme of a request. If you are going to stand behind your Bible or whatever method of faith that you follow please be consistent with it. Don't preach to us that science says it's "unnatural" to be gay when you read stories about a man who put two of every species on the entire planet on a boat before a flood. I'm not saying that religion leads to not using logic but you can't have your cake and eat it too.
  #75  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotch View Post
it is the people who want a different name FOR THE EXACT SAME CONCEPT that are being obtuse. .
That is just the point. It is not the same thing. Both relationships are not the same thing. The only thing that makes it the same is that we are all humans. If someone wants to marry their dog (and some people have tried), we call it a different name.

You paint us all as obtuse. I am painting many of you as baiters. Like I said in my prev post people who want both relationships to be called the same thing call people who do not think like that do every name in the book to make us seem wrong. As if we are all horrible people for not agreeing with your view.
  #76  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magjournal View Post
So you just proved that civil unions are not equal to marriages. People would be in an OUTRAGE if certain states were able to ban marriage, so why is it not a big deal if certain states ban civil unions?
I am sorry. I don't see where I have done that.

No one is going to ban marriages and to even suggest that is not logical. I don't agree states should ban civil unions, but state's laws are largely up to the people of that state. I don't live in certain states for the laws that they have. People move and avoid certain states for reasons like that al the time. I am sure there are illegal latin people avoiding Az for all the laws they are coming up with and opting to go through or live in Tx or CA. I know I would. If I were gay and wanted to marry a man, I am not going to live in the bible belt. I am heading to NY, NY or CA
  #77  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:54 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
That is just the point. It is not the same thing. Both relationships are not the same thing. The only thing that makes it the same is that we are all humans. If someone wants to marry their dog (and some people have tried), we call it a different name.

You paint us all as obtuse. I am painting many of you as baiters. Like I said in my prev post people who want both relationships to be called the same thing call people who do not think like that do every name in the book to make us seem wrong. As if we are all horrible people for not agreeing with your view.
I do not group everyone who doesn't think this way as being obtuse, however your anger in your rebuttal shows me how much emotion leads you in your argument rather than logic. You are not a horrible person for thinking this way. You are someone who clearly knows and understands a lot about this ongoing argument. So it's nice having an intelligent conversation with someone about such a popular topic. However in my opinion, which is my opinion and not a fact, based on the concept of marriage it should apply as the term to m/w, m/m and w/w. You want to call it something else because it is different to you. It is not different to everyone. What you think is right does not make it correct or a fact. The same goes for my belief. That is why this will be an unsolved argument for many years until hopefully, much like people's view on minorities, current views of trying to differentiate apples and oranges will be distilled and we can go on to trying to solve actual problems in our society.
  #78  
Old 09-30-2012, 03:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scotch View Post
I do not group everyone who doesn't think this way as being obtuse, however your anger in your rebuttal shows me how much emotion leads you in your argument rather than logic. You are not a horrible person for thinking this way. You are someone who clearly knows and understands a lot about this ongoing argument. So it's nice having an intelligent conversation with someone about such a popular topic. However in my opinion, which is my opinion and not a fact, based on the concept of marriage it should apply as the term to m/w, m/m and w/w. You want to call it something else because it is different to you. It is not different to everyone. What you think is right does not make it correct or a fact. The same goes for my belief. That is why this will be an unsolved argument for many years until hopefully, much like people's view on minorities, current views of trying to differentiate apples and oranges will be distilled and we can go on to trying to solve actual problems in our society.
I am not angry. I was more speaking to others not as much towards you. Most of what you said had little to do with what I said (bible and all). I am cool with how you feel. We live in different states and probably have different laws. In NJ, we have marriage and civil union. Both are equal.

I am not angry with this issue at all. I annoys me when I am called a name, because I do not think as another does though. If NJ passed a law that called a gay relationship a marriage, I am cool with it. I am not going to move or start protesting. I still will feel it should have a different name as I feel they are two different relationships.

Now, what was your former name?

Last edited by Erroneous; 09-30-2012 at 03:08 PM..
  #79  
Old 09-30-2012, 03:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I am sorry. I don't see where I have done that.
You pointed out that civil unions are a state issue, meaning you can go anywhere in the country and your marriage is recognized, but you can't do the same and have a civil union always recognized. They're not equal and they really should be.
  #80  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:07 PM
@Erroneous my previous name was Sgizzy316. I understand your point of view. Obviously tone cannot be translated through text so sometimes it's hard to determine what angle someone is taking especially in a discussion that can create so much passion. It's true that we are all effected by our environment and where we grow up and reside. So your point of view meeting what the majority of your part of the country feels makes perfect sense.
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

Forum Jump