or you could kill two birds with one stone.I left my keys at the office, paid $65 to a locksmith for 14 seconds of "work", but working on a bottle of Bacardi, and hopefully some Cush if I can get out of this thread...
or you could kill two birds with one stone.I left my keys at the office, paid $65 to a locksmith for 14 seconds of "work", but working on a bottle of Bacardi, and hopefully some Cush if I can get out of this thread...
A not totally true. Do some looking into the animal kingdom and you will find MANY 'natural' species that do not follow this 'order'...from gender changing, to self fertilizing/hermaphroditic species, to homosexual, incestual and orgy engaging primates............ The natural order of things is for men and women to attract...
Marrage is a religious idea that has absolutely nothing to do with nature. Celebrating a one night stand, or creating the most offsrping with the most mates would be a much more 'natural' celebration....and that is what a marriage celebrates.
the massive opportunity to lose about everything (especially for a man)
I assume you have the same opinion I would if no one in my family was gay:Why the hell would anyone read that magazine to begin with? Their outside interests should be the least of the valid reasons not to give them money.
I do oppose gay marriage, but if that WERE a magazine I did read I would stop simply for the audacity of spending that kind of money on some stupid special interest ****. Moto magazines are generally pretty redneck but I'd stop buying those in an instant if I found out they were supporting either of those sides with large sums of cash, or anything else with religious affiliation.
FYI, do not confuse an opinion with a phobia. The natural order of things is for men and women to attract and that is what a marriage celebrates. If they want a civil union of some kind so they can adopt/get insurance/set up their will, then fine.
I don't plan on getting married because the government now has far too much involvement in marriage and it leaves the massive opportunity to lose about everything (especially for a man), so take my opinion with a grain of salt. I think before anything else happens we need to put a ban on divorces. People will start taking the whole thing a lot more seriously, gays included - you never know, they may not even want it anymore!
A big piece of the right wing argument is that gay marriage threatens "traditional" marriage. That is why they calling the bills the "defense of marriage" bills when they try to pass them.Who said that?
Don't you know that gay marriage is the first sign of the incoming apocalypse and If it was allowed the nazis on dinosaurs would return? Then only magical mormon underpants would guard us from evil...This whole "religion versus gay marriage" thing here is cracking me up! They don't have to be mutually exclusive, you know. There are some churches that are working FOR gay marriage and rights. That's walking the talk!
So I've heard!Don't you know that gay marriage is the first sign of the incoming apocalypse and If it was allowed the nazis on dinosaurs would return? Then only magical mormon underpants would guard us from evil...
Nice, a summary with such the ironic touch. If you truly hate gays you will afford them their right to purchase the noose.Who cares if gays want to get married? Give them the same opportunity to ruin their lives as much as straights.
No you are like retards, and no you can't help it. But that's beside the point.Gays are like retards? They can't help it?
I like this quote myself,
"The biggest threat to marriage isn't same-sex couples; it's divorce"
One thing is I never discuss the "cause" of homosexuality. I personally find it offensive but my logical reason is that the only reason for discussing the "cause" is to find a "cure".Nice, a summary with such the ironic touch. If you truly hate gays you will afford them their right to purchase the noose.
As far as the notion of homosexuality being a choice, then that by default means you have to choose to become heterosexual. That just doesn't jibe with me because i get a chub when i think of smooth skin, boobs, curves and vag, but however hard i could try i don't think i can ever get myself to be worked up over beard, muscle, spooge, cock and balls.... But in order for Stinky's premise to be true, then it is quite possible for me to warm up to this notion? Just not true, and if it were, then how does a church explain Hermaphodites and the other sexual curveballs that happen to people from birth.
i do think there are other issues that Sanjuro brings up that are pretty important to this topic. You say you don't mind if people hate to themselves. In your view has not that very ignorance contributed to this point, and now has resulted in an unfavorable law in your view. And what does this speak of to the democratic process.
It's an interesting and historic precedent for this to occur than in the State of California of all places.
The interesting question to me is defining the institution of marriage itself and how does this impact how churches must adapt to conform to the law. It really doesn't since gays can still get married in a gay church, but this law would just make it legally invalid. So to me it's churches using government to undermine another church's ceremony which again is ironic, but not surprising.
Nobody has any real answers but one thing is for certain. This thread is teh ghey!!!!:biggrin:
Brian,Steve, I don't think your point is valid. Just because someone voted "Yes" on prop 8 doesn't mean he hates gays. The majority of the time, the ultra conservative religious bible thumping whack jobs just are more concerned with the term "Marriage", and want to keep "marriage" between man & woman. Most don't care if they spend the rest of their lives together, and receive the same benefits as a traditional married couple, again it's the "marriage" word that bothers them. I personally voted "No" on prop 8, because it really has no bearing on my life and if they are happy, that's all that matters with me. Basically you're hating because they don't share the same views as you, that's not right.
Except its wrong because the Mormon, your, or any other religious organization has no business in telling other churches what they can and cannot do. CA has no right or role in dictating religion practices no matter what the largest faction of churches/members say.I see everything wrong with denying certain people rights. I see nothing wrong with upholding what someone believes is the sanctity of marriage.
Your argument makes little-to-no sense to me. But I'll interpret it the best that I can.Except its wrong because the Mormon, your, or any other religious organization has no business in telling other churches what they can and cannot do. CA has no right or role in dictating religion practices no matter what the largest faction of churches/members say.
Not quite the same comparison.Regardless how i personally feel on the subject, I don't understand how one's opinion or belief in one thing makes them a hater of the opposite. If I prefer Pepsi doesn't mean i HATE Coke..
No, but it's that persons RIGHT to choose and vote one way or another, people assume hate or fear is the reason..You are making an assumption though as to why someone who would vote Yes is doing it.Not quite the same comparison.
Coke doesn't present any kind of threat to you, real or perceived.
Gay marriage scares the sh!t out of Tighty Whitey.
I prefer coke, but I enacted a law to prevent you from drinking pepsi, that would be the equivalent to Prop 8.Regardless how i personally feel on the subject, I don't understand how one's opinion or belief in one thing makes them a hater of the opposite. If I prefer Pepsi doesn't mean i HATE Coke..
How about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I guess that pales in comparison? Remember when interracial marriage was banned? Was that a good policy?No, but it's that persons RIGHT to choose and vote one way or another, people assume hate or fear is the reason..You are making an assumption though as to why someone who would vote Yes is doing it.
Boycott RM because Transcend hates me.How about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I guess that pales in comparison? Remember when interracial marriage was banned? Was that a good policy?
edit: goddamn sanjuro beat me.
My point isn't one way or another, but how can you make these people who vote YES out to be be hate monger, bigots, etc..to the level of boycotting them for something they believe.How about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I guess that pales in comparison? Remember when interracial marriage was banned? Was that a good policy?
edit: goddamn sanjuro beat me.
I see the distinction, but it's sort of semantic isn't it? The end result groups you in with the real haters, even if it's a sweeping generalization. And it's hard to see why you wouldn't support gay marriage unless you felt some kind of ill will or hate toward the people who want to do it.My point isn't one way or another, put how can you make these people who vote YES out to be be hate monger, bigots, etc..
If they have a religious perspective(one that this country was founded on), that they believe in, how does that make them haters?
My point is not supporting something and HATING it are not the same..
Not supporting something is different from having your nose in other people's business - when you put your belief over on someone else, you are getting in their business.My point isn't one way or another, but how can you make these people who vote YES out to be be hate monger, bigots, etc..to the level of boycotting them for something they believe.
If they have a religious perspective(one that this country was founded on), that they believe in, how does that make them haters?
My point is not supporting something and HATING it are not the same..
Exactly, every gay man doesn't like being called a pedophile, or crazed sex addict lurking in public bath houses, yet they will generalize others?I see the distinction, but it's sort of semantic isn't it? The end result groups you in with the real haters, even if it's a sweeping generalization. And it's hard to see why you wouldn't support gay marriage unless you felt some kind of ill will or hate toward the people who want to do it.
If you don't want to be a part of that group, then vote the other way.
Precisely. Thanks.Not supporting something is different from having your nose in other people's business - when you put your belief over on someone else, you are getting in their business.
Weak. How does being gay = pedophile or another form of criminal? Your bias is showing loud and clear.Exactly, every gay man doesn't like being called a pedophile, or crazed sex addict lurking in public bath houses, yet they will generalize others?
wow, stereotyping much?Exactly, every gay man doesn't like being called a pedophile, or crazed sex addict lurking in public bath houses, yet they will generalize others?
Hate speech is a term for speech intended to degrade, intimidate, or incite violence or prejudicial action against a person or group of people based on their race, gender, age, ethnicity, nationality, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability, language ability, ideology, social class, occupation, appearance (height, weight, hair color, etc.), mental capacity, and any other distinction that might be considered by some as a liability. The term covers written as well as oral communication and some forms of behaviors in a public setting. It is also sometimes called antilocution and is the first point on Allport's scale which measures prejudice in a society.
You are proving my point..what is all the hate on people who voted YES doing, putting THEIR belief over the others.Not supporting something is different from having your nose in other people's business - when you put your belief over on someone else, you are getting in their business.