1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

Same sex Marriage

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by Emma Pollard, Feb 22, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Conran

    Conran Active Member

    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    76
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #461


    In a democratic country people have the right to live their lives free of meddling from religious, moralistic crusaders determined to inflict their notion of what is right and wrong on other free people when the lives of those free people have no bearing on their own rights and existence.

    People have the right to be as homophobic, racist, sexist and offensive as they want, they DO NOT have the right to dictate their will onto others through law and governance.

    Likewise, people have the RIGHT to argue against such beliefs and dictatorial attitudes.

    Once more, you are claiming that only one side has the right of freedom of opinion here. GLAAD and the pro-equality crowd has as much right to express their opinion as those they are expressing an opinion against. It is not destroying freedom of opinion to protest against a bigot. That is the very expression of that freedom.

    You cannot claim that homophobia is free speech, while simultaneously denouncing those who exercise theirs in opposition of that opinion.

    No one stopped that Duck Dynasty guy from having his opinion. No one has told him he cannot have that opinion. No one on this planet can force him to stop thinking that way or prevent him from saying whatever he believes. But, that doesn't mean everyone should immediately just accept his view and remain silent about his opinions.
     
    Conran, Jan 11, 2014 IP
  2. Conran

    Conran Active Member

    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    76
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #462
    So now you're comparing gay rights activists to terrorists too?

    I really didn't think the IQ level expressed could drop any lower. I was clearly wrong.
     
    Conran, Jan 11, 2014 IP
  3. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #463
    You must not be familiar with the Duck Dynasty case. GLAAD brought pressure to bear to have Phil thrown off the show for his opinions. That isn't an expression of opinion, that is a lynch mob.

    If you don't like the comparisons to Al Queda, quit acting like them.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 11, 2014 IP
  4. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #464
    By way of asking, what exactly did Phil say about homosexuals that you found to be bigotry, since you claim GLAAD's lynch mob was "protesting a bigot".
     
    Obamanation, Jan 11, 2014 IP
  5. Conran

    Conran Active Member

    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    76
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #465
    And you have evidence of this? From what I saw, there was public outrage over his opinion and A&E made a business decision to attempt to protect their brand.

    When you have hundreds of thousands of complaints from disgusted viewers, it makes absolute sense to protect your business and act according to the wishes of your customer.

    The fact that you think pro-equality people are acting like a terrorist organization shows how delusional you are, and pretty much discredits everything you've said on this so far.

    I guess once you've compared gay people to child molesters any irrational nonsense can be expected.
     
    Conran, Jan 11, 2014 IP
  6. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #466
    Yes, well, I'm not going to touch that one. Not for this topic.


    On second thought, maybe I will touch (on) the first topic.

    While certainly some of her points have merit, there is a reason that this group enjoys the prominence that it does. Like many other issues we face today, it's a causal relationship with how we have approached certain decisions in the past. Certainly, we could be blamed for being - and I'm putting it diplomatically - "shortsighted."

    How people are treated by society will determine their behavior withing a given context. These groups, and these issues, did not just magically crop up. If you want people to hate everything that you stand for, rage against you for years, and ultimately, win the battle of public opinion, then I commend you (speaking in the formal sense, not familiar) on having a very tidy gameplan.

    I know it's a radical group, with tons of political influence. People like yourself empowered them. Congratulations on creating your own nemesis.

    Given what I've said above, there are some who will consider the old adage, "an enemy of my enemy is my friend". You say that you don't like what this group is doing, but I have to say, you don't pick your battles very well. In the end, the gay marriage will be won by the opposite side, and you will have just wasted your energy. Why some people can't focus on positive advancement, rather than negative restriction, is a mystery to me.
     
    solid7, Jan 11, 2014 IP
  7. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #467
    Denial. How unsurprising.

    You must not be familiar with how the story played out. There were indeed not hundreds of thousands, but actually millions of complaints from A&E's viewers over their suspension of Phil Robertson under pressure from GLAAD's brown shirted lynch mob. Your only mistake was confusing the people who removed the noose from around Phil's neck with the people who put it there.

    Actually, the person I quoted making a similar comparison was gay activist and feminist Camille Paglia. I simply share her sentiment, as millions of other Americans do.

    Scientists often compare humans to the great apes. I suppose they are irrational too, in your well studied scientific opinion. Perhaps we should check in with the ministry of propaganda first, to be sure those words are approved speech.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 11, 2014 IP
  8. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #468
    Comedy. (to put it in your words) Without defining context at all, you make a misleading comparison. Your powers of association are somewhat less than impressive.

    Science and scientists of the past have also compared great apes to certain members of the human population, in a much more direct fashion. Care to comment on that? How about letting us know if you agree with that historical position on science? If not, what swayed your opinion? And why is it that those views may be altered, but on this issue, you are so immovable? Is it not the nature of science to constantly evaluate, and correct views, based on new evidence? (hint: yes) Or is there some point that science is set in stone for you?

    Here is a link to the scientific method, so that you may understand what method of logic is used outside of your sphere of influence. Suggest that you read up on the sections entitled, "Scientific Inquiry", "Properties of Scientific Inquiry", and "Beliefs and Biases." It will go a long way in explaining that "magical day in 1973" for you.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

    Until science fully understands the mechanics of BOTH homosexuality AND paedophelia, they have no business being used comparatively. I understand that you are willing to take the road most travelled - but historical opinions are not the basis for modern science.

    By the way, I didn't check with either GLAAD or Camille Paglia to form my opinion, just so you know. I tried to rely on my education and problem solving skills, rather than my emotions or political views. Maybe after we beat this dead horse a little more, I can take your place as the next Steven Hawking. Comedy. Denial. Midriffs. Laxatives. (you are so good at one word responses, thought that I'd give you some new material)
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2014
    solid7, Jan 11, 2014 IP
  9. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #469
    Until science fully understands the mechanics of BOTH Electromagnetic interaction AND Gravitational interaction, they have no business being used comparatively.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Written like a true scientist. If only quarks had feelings and gravity was considered immoral, I'm sure someone like you would write something exactly like that.

    By the way, I absolutely love the fact I got you to read about the scientific method. Now if you can just take the steps of prediction and testing and apply those to the "hockey stick" chart climate change models used as the "indisputable" basis for Al Gore's carbon market (Before he sold his media company to big oil), you will be completely ready to simply start shouting and calling people bigots and racists so you can retain your current beliefs.
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2014
    Obamanation, Jan 11, 2014 IP
    Corwin likes this.
  10. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #470
    Not the case. There is enough understanding of both of those subjects, that any subsequent theories of their relevance can be proven. (reasonably and substantially) They are also not muddied by the politics of the layperson. If only we had that luxury with the homosexual debate. As it stands, science hasn't been as receptive (until recently) to objectively studying the mechanics of human sexuality as they have been with holding a fucking office door open and predicting good fishing days.

    I am not interested in having a global warming debate with you (or anyone) in a gay marriage debate. Where is that focus that you claim to be so fond of, and proficient in?
     
    solid7, Jan 11, 2014 IP
  11. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #471
    So now you think unified field theory has been proven? Wow.

    Even if that were the case (which it most definitely is not), I love the argument. It goes essentially, "If we understand enough about related types of things, they can be compared. If not, we shouldn't be comparing them at all."

    Again. Spoken like a true scientist. Comedy.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 11, 2014 IP
  12. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #472
    Distraction. Deflection. Comedy.

    Bullshit.

    This isn't quantum physics. The more relevant angle would something like this: If we understand enough about 2 things individually, we can hypothesize about their relevance, based on correlation.

    Using your logic, we could form complex theories about anything, whilst understanding very little about any of the individual components. Rather than making an attempt to build understanding upon understanding.

    Even in the fields of advanced simple science, no matter is ever considered settled. If tomorrow it could be proven that the center of the Earth was filled with dishsoap, it would be the obligation of honest scientists everywhere to reformulate every known instance of knowledge that hinged around the discovery. But of course you already know that, don't you?
     
    Last edited: Jan 11, 2014
    solid7, Jan 11, 2014 IP
    Conran likes this.
  13. grpaul

    grpaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    221
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #473
    Wow, did you watch this video?



    Interesting. . .
     
    grpaul, Jan 13, 2014 IP
    Obamanation likes this.
  14. Corwin

    Corwin Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,438
    Likes Received:
    107
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    195
    #474
    I agree with everything you wrote except the last sentence.

    No government should be in the business of legally recognizing or authorizing love. Should the government make friendship legally binding, too?

    Wow. I've seen bigots on this board, but no one was ever so blatant as this guy.

    Re-read your history, religion played a huge role in both the creation of the British Empire as well as the United States. Remember, the Pilgrims first came to the Americas for religious freedom. Read Thomas Jefferson et al on how religion played such a huge role in the creation of this nation. As a matter of fact President Jefferson forbade atheists from being in his cabinet, with the sound reasoning that without a solid spiritual education that teaches that it is fundamentally wrong to lie, an atheist will become a liar (I didn't think that was true until my experiences showed me it was).

    And didn't the British Empire have an official state religion? Doesn't it still today?
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2014
    Corwin, Jan 22, 2014 IP
    grpaul likes this.
  15. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    28,494
    Likes Received:
    4,457
    Best Answers:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #475
    it will already allow that. Try it. Phone your lawyer and say you want to enter a legally binding friendship with your best mate. After he's picked himself up off the floor reassure him that you aren't Sheldon Cooper and I bet, for a sum, he could work on the contract.
     
    sarahk, Jan 22, 2014 IP
  16. Conran

    Conran Active Member

    Messages:
    301
    Likes Received:
    76
    Best Answers:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    78
    #476
    You might want to reconsider that and think about what means for those who are under age.
    You might also want to consider how abandoning what is already in place might affect the rights of spouses and partners to receive state assistance, visit their partners, make life altering decisions on their behalf... Without the state recognizing and legislating for partnerships between couples you can throw several associated things out of the window.

    Our nations are built through the application of laws, removing the definitions of partnerships in marriage will fundamentally change thousands of laws that you would not want changed, covering everything from the legal age of consent to the right for you to visit your dying partner in hospital.

    So now you think that anyone who doesn't believe in a mythical sky wizard is a liar?

    I would say the opposite is true, those who believe in a fantastical story with no evidence while claiming it's the truth are fundamentally liars. You cannot claim that you know something to be true when you cannot possibly provide any evidence for it - therefore, everyone who states categorically that there is absolutely a God, is a liar by very definition. If there is a God, prove it. If you claim there is one, while you cannot prove it, you are a liar.

    The US was built on slavery (something that the religious in the US supported till the end, using quotes from their Holy texts too, I might add), immigration and military power. This is not about internal politics of the time, this is about what made the USA an economic and military power around the world - what made America "great" in his opinion. That was down to slave labor, immigration and military power, nothing more and nothing less.
     
    Conran, Jan 22, 2014 IP
  17. Obamanation

    Obamanation Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    8,016
    Likes Received:
    237
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    180
    #477
    Are you attributing this opinion to someone else, or yourself? I certainly didn't see Corwin express this opinion. If you think what made America "great" was slave labor and military power, I strongly recommend you pick up a history book. Throughout America's history, the immigrants who literally flooded this nation came here for the opportunity and the freedom from oppression. If they were used to build our railroads and fight our wars, they were certainly eager participants for the opportunity to succeed.

    Its the taxpayer funded social safety nets that killed open borders and immigrant labor in this country, and you can thank FDR for that. When people came here for opportunity and created no additional tax burden on this nation, it was a winning formula, both for the US, and for immigrants. What we have now is a dysfunctional leftist idiocracy where the dumb SEIU union workers actually march in the streets for the rights of the illegals who drive down their wages while living off their tax dollars. Democrats love it when stupid people vote. Its how they cling to power, and why we are now rated behind several island nations in the Caribbean on a corruption scale.

    Brawndo. Its got what plants crave.
     
    Obamanation, Jan 22, 2014 IP
    grpaul likes this.
  18. sarahk

    sarahk iTamer Staff

    Messages:
    28,494
    Likes Received:
    4,457
    Best Answers:
    123
    Trophy Points:
    665
    #478
    lol
    And that is why in Western cultures we call it "faith".
     
    sarahk, Jan 22, 2014 IP
    Obamanation likes this.
  19. grpaul

    grpaul Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    785
    Likes Received:
    221
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    135
    #479
    And, what do you believe in? How do you think we were placed on this earth?

    Yup, gotta love it right? And anyone that is against same sex marriage is a bigot and full of hatred, but people like that are not. ;-)
     
    grpaul, Jan 23, 2014 IP
  20. solid7

    solid7 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    459
    Likes Received:
    51
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    148
    #480
    Being "this guy", I'll point out that I've not once called anyone a bigot, racist, homophobe, or anything else remotely close. It was an opinion, not stated as fact. I'm also the same "bigot" that agrees with your stated position, that government has no business in defining love and relationships.

    The positions offered up by many seem to be indicative that their opinions are stronger than civil discourse will allow to be aired. Versus my own, which state that I care not what position you hold, so long as you don't use it to trouble anyone else through the vehicle of law.

    Sounds pretty fucking bigoted to me... (rolling my eyes)

    Your use of the word is the reason why it has no meaning at all. It's not an insult, it's a cliche...
     
    solid7, Jan 23, 2014 IP
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.