Gay marriage

[dmp]

yes, and someone who thinks because someone is different then themselves is wrong, and imoral has lots of common sense

Homosexuals aren't wrong because they are different, they are wrong because they choose to have sex with others of the same gender. Your arguments are pretty weak - much weaker than mine, which are mostly anecdotal to this point. However, I do a much better job of what's known as "Making Sense" than you.

Enjoy your day!

 

[no1tovote4]

yes, and someone who thinks because someone is different then themselves is wrong, and imoral has lots of common sense

This is directly what you are doing with this post. He believes differently than you, therefore he must be wrong!

It is often hypocritical to point out the intolerance of others, because by doing so you are necessarily being intolerant of their viewpoint.

 

[gaffer]

(this is only if you think that it homosexuality is true because the bible says so) Not everyone is christian, and as an americain, it is your responsibility to respect people whose opinions differ.

I don't believe in the bible myself and I find fags to be loathsome. homo's are unnatural. As an American (as opposed to and americain) it is not my responsibility to respect anyone for anything. Its my right to opine about what I think. Respect is something thats earned, not a responsibility.

 

[musicman]

IMO the Government's sole duty is to protect people from direct victimization, not to "reward" right action. If you get into that you begin having the government "reward" people by not giving them tickets when they wear their seatbelts, etc. It becomes too intrusive.

Actually, no1, I think I can see where you're coming from, and - to a great extent - I agree. I think our founding fathers meant to halt tyranny in every conceivable form. They did this by treating centralized, or federal - if you will - government as a necessary evil, to be kept on a short, jealously guarded leash. Except for a few, specifically enumerated powers, the federal government's job is to stay the hell out of everyone's business. The real power - the decisions on everyday matters of behavior - devolve, by constitutional design, to the states, to the communities, and - ultimately - to the individual. That is my understanding of self-government.

However, when it works like it should, the people, then, ARE the government. And, by that definition, I would say that the government most assuredly DOES have the right and the power to determine matters like marriage.

 

[suspiria]

This is directly what you are doing with this post. He believes differently than you, therefore he must be wrong!

It is often hypocritical to point out the intolerance of others, because by doing so you are necessarily being intolerant of their viewpoint.

Im sorry i do think its intolerant and thats my point of veiw Its intolerant to call some one a fag just as its intolerant to call a black person the N word

 

[Trinity]

adoption, and you can have a family without kids!!!!

Think about this for a minute, Homosexuality becomes the norm. 200 years from now there are no male, female relationships. How long do you think it will take for the human race to die off?

 

[no1tovote4]

Are you arguing "The Family" and "Marriage" is 'not' beneficial?

No, I am arguing that the government is not the entity that should define which are beneficial and which are not. That the government's sole duty should be to protect others from direct victimization, not defining what relationships are beneficial or attempting to "sanctify" a relationship in any way. It is simply not their place to do so.

 

[suspiria]

Think about this for a minute, Homosexuality becomes the norm. 200 years from now there are no male, female relationships. How long do you think it will take for the human race to die off?

hmmm Im pretty sure i never said it would be come the norm,

 

[no1tovote4]

Im sorry i do think its intolerant and thats my point of veiw Its intolerant to call some one a fag just as its intolerant to call a black person the N word

As I stated, pointing out the intolerance of others only shows others your points of intolerance as well.

I am sure I am being clear here, by attempting to define him as "bad" because of intolerance, you are simply being intolerant of his point of view and justifying it by what you believe to be right or wrong. Thus you are just as guilty of exactly what you accuse him of.

In order to point out other's intolerance, you necessarily have to be intolerant yourself.

(Oh, and so far your post is the only post in which I have read the word "F@g".

 

[Trinity]

hmmm Im pretty sure i never said it would be come the norm,

No you didn't, however that is what''s happening, you see it everywhere now! TV, movies, think about it!

 

[5stringJeff]

Think about this for a minute, Homosexuality becomes the norm. 200 years from now there are no male, female relationships. How long do you think it will take for the human race to die off?

One generation?

 

[Said1]

Why do stitchman and supiria's exsessive use of punctuation seem familiar? Why do THEY seem familiar? Is it just me, I'm not feeling well,

 

[suspiria]

As I stated, pointing out the intolerance of others only shows others your points of intolerance as well.

I am sure I am being clear here, by attempting to define him as "bad" because of intolerance, you are simply being intolerant of his point of view and justifying it by what you believe to be right or wrong. Thus you are just as guilty of exactly what you accuse him of.

In order to point out other's intolerance, you necessarily have to be intolerant yourself.

Its just beyond me that in 2005 people still have these archaic point of veiws.

 

[musicman]

I don't believe in the bible myself and I find fags to be loathsome. homo's are unnatural. As an American (as opposed to and americain) it is not my responsibility to respect anyone for anything. Its my right to opine about what I think. Respect is something thats earned, not a responsibility.

"...and americain" - LMAO!

 

[Annie]

Why do stitchman and supiria's exsessive use of punctuation seem familiar? Why do THEY seem familiar? Is it just me, I'm not feeling well,

Hmmm, good question. Of course it's possible they are just both very excitable and not too ?

 

[suspiria]

No you didn't, however that is what''s happening, you see it everywhere now! TV, movies, think about it!

Movies and TV = truth

 

[Trinity]

One generation?

Oh come on you Know what I mean, I just didn't feel up to doing the math on it! How bout you do it for me and give us some more accurate numbers!

 

[musicman]

Its just beyond me that in 2005 people still have these archaic point of veiws.

Yup, that's us:

Conservatives - building a bridge to the nineteenth century!

Future looks pretty bleak for liberalism, don't you think? Sucks to be you.

 

[no1tovote4]

Its just beyond me that in 2005 people still have these archaic point of veiws.

How "intolerant" of you. They are entitled to their opinion, learning to live with them would be much more "tolerant" than attempting to make them live as you want them to by making laws that align with your "intolerant" POV.

My point here is that the whole "tolerance" thing works both ways, it is not one that you should make attempting to support your position because by making it you are showing that you are exactly just as "intolerant" as they supposedly are. And that you also want to make laws based on your own position of "morality" and therefore "push" your belief onto them. That the laws would more align with your POV doesn't make them any more "tolerant" it just makes them subjected to your position of "morality" over those of another.

Once again, a reason why the government should not be in the business of defining morality at all.

 

[suspiria]

How "intolerant" of you. They are entitled to their opinion, learning to live with them would be much more "tolerant" than attempting to make them live as you want them to by making laws that align with your "intolerant" POV.

My point here is that the whole "tolerance" thing works both ways, it is not one that you should make attempting to support your position because by making it you are showing that you are exactly just as "intolerant" as they supposedly are. And that you also want to make laws based on your own position of "morality" and therefore "push" your belief onto them. That the laws would more align with your POV doesn't make them any more "tolerant" it just makes them subjected to your position of "morality" over those of another.

Once again, a reason why the government should not be in the business of defining morality at all.

You have made your point, I understand, I dont care if people beilieve what they believe. Im just debating