tnrtinr
Well-Known Member
Who are you to determine who get discriminated against?Sexuality and race are the same thing?
Thanks I never would have guessed...
Who are you to determine who get discriminated against?Sexuality and race are the same thing?
Thanks I never would have guessed...
Yes, sexuality and race are exactly the same thing when analogizing how closely each category associates their "members" with the human race. One's sexuality does not detract from one's humanity in the same way that your skin color does not detract from your humanity.Sexuality and race are the same thing?
Thanks I never would have guessed...
Lopezri,lopezri is fine with his sexuality, and he accepts himself as he is, and that didn't come by beating down religious people, or trying to change society at large.
I congratulate you sir!
I guess that's why we're all allowed our own opinions. To me it sounds like Green Cross is open and fair about people being gay he just doesn't think it belongs in the church, according to what you're saying. I don't care if the church changes the definition of marriage. Who would want to go to a church that doesn't welcome you anyway? Why can't marriage just be a church thing and the government get out of the business of unions or marriage altogether? Especially now that states have this 50/50 division of assets for divorce anyway, why can't any partnership just be considered a business partnership/transaction?Lopezri,
Green Cross is saying that you are to be congratulated as long as you do not advocate a desire to redefine an unfair and prejudiced LEGAL definition to a definition that is inclusive and respectful of all human being's sexual preferences. His argument would be valid only if you were trying to force YOUR preference on HIS private religious institution's definition of marriage.
I'm not you (and I'm not even gay), but I don't believe that supports a +1 rep.
[youtube]wQZHbJYE7hM[/youtube]or two girls bumping flowers
I think we might be in complete agreement though our semantics might be different. I think the church can make whatever definitions for whatever words they want. I really don't care, nor do I think the government should dictate these private matters. However, the government has taken the lopsided and prejudiced definition that the church has established, and put it into LAW.I guess that's why we're all allowed our own opinions. To me it sounds like Green Cross is open and fair about people being gay he just doesn't think it belongs in the church, according to what you're saying. I don't care if the church changes the definition of marriage. Who would want to go to a church that doesn't welcome you anyway? Why can't marriage just be a church thing and the government get out of the business of unions or marriage altogether? Especially now that states have this 50/50 division of assets for divorce anyway, why can't any partnership just be considered a business partnership/transaction?
Well I don't see it as offensive and like I said previously, I am gay. Do you find it offensive because YOU are gay? or are you straight?I think we might be in complete agreement though our semantics might be different. I think the church can make whatever definitions for whatever words they want. I really don't care, nor do I think the government should dictate these private matters. However, the government has taken the lopsided and prejudiced definition that the church has established, and put it into LAW.
I am a strict voluntarist, so my criticisms for government involvement in ANYTHING is unwavering. Thus, I believe it is wrong for ANYONE to use the power of government to dictate what YOU choose to call your contract... as simple and silly an issue as it sounds (what to call something).
If this specific title and definition belongs exclusively to people of a particular belief or faith, then it SHOULD NOT be used in secular law. Any definition that is exclusionary based of religious belief and/or prejudice SHOULD NOT be the STANDARD for ALL people!
From what I see, Green Cross is saying that should you decide to make this sensible request, you are guilty of "beating up religious people and trying to change society."
This is offensive to me, and I'm just trying to make the case as to why I think it should be offensive to you. I understand it's a bit harder to see on the surface since he did frame this language with ass kissing pandering to your personal choices and orientation ("He is fine with his sexuality" and "He accepts himself"). Just don't ask for equality, that would immediately change his opinion of you.
That makes sense, to me though, it's just a word. I agree that the government shouldn't be dictating who gets to marry who, they should be out of it completely. If the church wants to use the word marriage to mean between a man and a woman then let them. Maybe the government should just call it a "snarfkle" and it can be defined as a man and man couple, a woman and woman couple, a man and woman couple or any type of coupled relationship between two consenting adults. Just stop using the word "marriage" altogether. The churches can use it for their "snarfkles" between a man and a woman and even call it a marriage but as far as the government is concerned (since "Big Brother" HAS to get their hand in your pocket more) any couple union is a snarfkle. That way the church keeps it's definition of marriage and makes it all go away.Hey lopezri,
I do hope you know that I'm not trying to stir up conflict with you or anyone, but I am just trying to reason and debate from first principles. There's not really much at stake here since none of us are going to directly change the system, but debating is a fun mental exercise.
I'm willing to assume that Green Cross is a very nice person and even tolerant on the surface, but it is important that one realizes what they are truly advocating. I am not gay, but I am irked from a different perspective. I don't like people advocating the use of government force to enforce their preferences on other people. It is an affront to my freedom whenever that happens. What is interesting though, is that my opposition on this point tries to make the exact argument, that I am trying to limit their freedom by asking that the PUBLIC definition of marriage be a neutral one regardless of sexual orientation, race or other factors (especially factors that are outside the control of those who inherit them).
If a law defines marriage as a social contract between two people, it does not limit a christian from getting "married" for being heterosexual, thus I am not limiting their freedom (they may be offended, but offending someone is NOT limiting their freedoms). However, if a law defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, it excludes all same sex couples from getting married which is a limitation on their freedom. This is basic stuff! If something is good and ethical for ONE type of human being, it is good and ethical for ALL human beings. If marriage is good and ethical for straight people, it is good and ethical for gay people too.
I have no problem if all religious institutions want to condemn gay marriage as evil, wrong and illegitimate. I just don't want their nonsensical, bigoted, fairy tale beliefs to be FORCED on me through LAWS from the federal government. I also don't accept that they own a monopoly or trademark on the word "marriage".
save the planet, suck a dick.Well Rick, I don't think there will ever be a way to get you to see things differently than the way you see them because from what I've read it seems like you've been brought up to believe that homosexuality in general is immoral. I'm not criticizing you here. I'm just saying that's what it seems to me from what I've read in this thread and the "is gay marriage really that big'o'deal?" thread. And I guess that's okay to have that opinion.
My only question is, aside from what the Bible, church, and your parents have taught you, have you ever considered the issue from the other side? Do YOU really know what homosexuals are feeling? Do you know anything about what any of them have ever gone through in their lives? Until recently, most of them were within inches of their own lives because heterosexuals have abused and harassed them to the breaking point. I'm glad that God has given us the ability to love and be able to control our populations. Can you imagine how long ago we would have killed each other off had we only had a bunch of heterosexuals running around and making babies all the time? We'd be way more overpopulated than China or India. People would be dying off just from starvation and I think homosexuals and heterosexuals would be dying about the same rate. That's just survival of the fittest, not survival of the one's who like to put their dicks in pussy.
I hope one day you'll be able to see God's infinite wisdom with all of his creative design to understand that everyone deserves an equal chance because we're all created by Him. His words are sacred but even we know those words have been manipulated and even omitted to meet the needs of those trying to use it as a tool of "morality". Not everyone's idea of morality is the same. The "golden rule" and the 10 commandments are really just basic living ideals and standards. And that's mainly what we as humans should be trying to follow, not all the stuff that can be misinterpreted.
save the planet, suck a dick.
you're joking about this, right? if it weren't for gays we'd be overpopulated? this is not what you are really saying is it?
LOL! I like that. I'm going to make T-Shirts that say that!
I'm not completely joking. Homosexuality does help with overpopulation by limiting procreation. I'm telling you. . . I wouldn't get hard from or touch one of them "giners" no matter how persuasive or coercive someone were being. It's just not in my blood. Sorry, it just doesn't arouse me, just like "those parts" don't arouse other homosexuals. I think true lesbians feel the same way. I use the word "true" here because I DO know some women who become lesbian because they just feel more loved or comfortable with another woman. Never knew a gay guy that was like that though.
LOL! That's funny!i'm a horny straight man and i have seen one or 2 giners i wouldn't touch either.
LOL. In a strange sense that was sorta what I heard too.save the planet, suck a dick.