Conquer Club

Trolling again, simon?

I should certainly hope gay marriage is legal!

What's the point of being married if one is never gay? If, as a couple, there are never any gay afternoons spent at the park, or having a gay picnic?

Of course, I don't know many people for whom the gaiety of the honeymoon lasted into the actual marriage, leading me to believe that in fact, gay marriage is impossible, but we shouldn't go outlawing an ideal, now should we?

pimpdave wrote:I should certainly hope gay marriage is legal!

What's the point of being married if one is never gay? If, as a couple, there are never any gay afternoons spent at the park, or having a gay picnic?

Of course, I don't know many people for whom the gaiety of the honeymoon lasted into the actual marriage, leading me to believe that in fact, gay marriage is impossible, but we shouldn't go outlawing an ideal, now should we?

Someone likes to say the word gay a bit too much, I think.

mpjh wrote:Trolling again, simon?

Not really, trolling is subtle, that should've been an obvious point.

Simon Viavant wrote:

mpjh wrote:Trolling again, simon?

Not really, trolling is subtle, that should've been an obvious point.

I agree, the post certainly wasn't subtle, one might say it was inflammatory.

mpjh wrote:

Simon Viavant wrote:

mpjh wrote:Trolling again, simon?

Not really, trolling is subtle, that should've been an obvious point.

I agree, the post certainly wasn't subtle, one might say it was inflammatory.

No, just heavily sarcastic. BES will however immediately think Simon is attacking him.


Or he will reply completely unironic with: "Good idea!"

i think marriage is what it is. and, with the divorce rate being do high what does sacred really mean? the fact is that in the old days instead of a divorce the couples just packed a bag and left. so, marriage to some is sacred and to others it's just not.

so, with that said do i believe in gay marriage? not really. but, i do believe in civil union. why would i believe in 1 and not the other. because the constitution says everyone is equal. that's why.

i think that if you are gay or lesbian and you have been in a long term relationship that certain rights get lost. medical rights, property rights, inheritance rights, and many other things that people take for granted.

there was a time and still in some places it still exist where a gay coouple buys a home and when 1 dies the family of the deceased take the house. now think about this... they both paid the mortgage, furnishings, taxes and utilities. the one left gets kicked out. now, is that fair?

that's all. equal rights for all.

nuff said.

Roger Dodger wrote:

that's all. equal rights for all.

nuff said.

In the interest of keeping the morons who talk about "geneticness" of homosexuality out of other threads and into one where that topic was actually up for discussion I resurect this thread.


It's an awesome read by the way.

I looks to me like you liberals are getting way outvoted. I just wish that all those intelligent people out there would actually say stuff in the forums.

Burrito wrote:I looks to me like you liberals are getting way outvoted. I just wish that all those intelligent people out there would actually say stuff in the forums.

The looming suspicion is that the people out there who remain silent aren't intelligent.

Burrito wrote:I looks to me like you liberals are getting way outvoted. I just wish that all those intelligent people out there would actually say stuff in the forums.

Yeah strangely we already saw that a few pages into this thread. We concluded that those who said no weren't actually intelligent people but brainwashed morons who's computer-savvy makes them able to vote on a topic and nothing else. Since none of them stepped up to dispute that it's a fairly safe assumption.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Burrito wrote:I looks to me like you liberals are getting way outvoted. I just wish that all those intelligent people out there would actually say stuff in the forums.

Yeah strangely we already saw that a few pages into this thread. We concluded that those who said no weren't actually intelligent people but brainwashed morons who's computer-savvy makes them able to vote on a topic and nothing else. Since none of them stepped up to dispute that it's a fairly safe assumption.

Or maybe they have better things to do than to argue with some guy who lives a thousand miles away, and whom they will never convince of anything because said person does not consider what they have to say, they just automatically disagree with it. I honestly have nothing better to do while I am working on my homework, so I am on here a lot.

Let's see less than a thousand gamers vote a majority against gay marriage- - yes that is decisive in the real world - yup for sure.

One thing that I learned very quickly after joining CC and entering the OT forums was that the Atheists of the world own this forum.

My suspicion is that they have slapped the sh*t out of so many that this forum today is largely one sided.

Atheists are the smart ones.

Snorri1234 wrote:In the interest of keeping the morons who talk about "geneticness" of homosexuality out of other threads and into one where that topic was actually up for discussion I resurect this thread.

How is that not on topic about whether or not Gays can serve?

Juan_Bottom wrote:How is that not on topic about whether or not Gays can serve?

wrong thread, this isn't the "don't ask, don't tell" thread...-0

owenshooter wrote:

Juan_Bottom wrote:How is that not on topic about whether or not Gays can serve?

wrong thread, this isn't the "don't ask, don't tell" thread...-0

Wrong forum, here in OT we don't ban people for asking questions or going slightly off topic.

Juan_Bottom wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:In the interest of keeping the morons who talk about "geneticness" of homosexuality out of other threads and into one where that topic was actually up for discussion I resurect this thread.

How is that not on topic about whether or not Gays can serve?

Because it's ultimately unimportant in regards to deciding whether Don't Ask, Don't Tell is a good policy. While of course it's also unimportant with regards to gay marriage this thread swiftly and for an astonishing amount of pages made that discussion topical.

Basically I just wanted to keep the "gene"-discussion to another thread because it has a tendency to take over threads.

I'll throw my two cents in, even though it won't make a dent in any conversation.

I'm morally against gay marriage. I think its a sin and well everything else you've heard against it before. But, here comes the contravesy in my mind, I'm a strict Constitutionalist and looking at gay marriage, I think it is unconstitutional to deny them the same rights as heterosexuals. So although its against every single of my beliefs, I think gay marriage should be legal.

One more thing, I think the voters voices should be heard. I don't think that activist judges should make the decsion of whether or not a state should legalize gay marriage. I think it should be up to the populas.

What I think should happen is that all the states should hold referendums to vote on whether or not their state should have gay marriage or not (such as California, Vermont, and others). And both sides should not try to overturn the results, via the courts, like the gay rights activists did in California last year.

jsholty4690 wrote:I'll throw my two cents in, even though it won't make a dent in any conversation.

I'm morally against gay marriage. I think its a sin and well everything else you've heard against it before. But, here comes the contravesy in my mind, I'm a strict Constitutionalist and looking at gay marriage, I think it is unconstitutional to deny them the same rights as heterosexuals. So although its against every single of my beliefs, I think gay marriage should be legal.

One more thing, I think the voters voices should be heard. I don't think that activist judges should make the decsion of whether or not a state should legalize gay marriage. I think it should be up to the populas.

What I think should happen is that all the states should hold referendums to vote on whether or not their state should have gay marriage or not (such as California, Vermont, and others). And both sides should not try to overturn the results, via the courts, like the gay rights activists did in California last year.

You seem to have a bit of a dichotomy in your opinion. You feel that gay marriage should be legal under the constitution but also feel that the people should decide on whether or not it is legal? Both are legitimate opinions, but they don't really match up.

Burrito wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Burrito wrote:I looks to me like you liberals are getting way outvoted. I just wish that all those intelligent people out there would actually say stuff in the forums.

Yeah strangely we already saw that a few pages into this thread. We concluded that those who said no weren't actually intelligent people but brainwashed morons who's computer-savvy makes them able to vote on a topic and nothing else. Since none of them stepped up to dispute that it's a fairly safe assumption.

Or maybe they have better things to do than to argue with some guy who lives a thousand miles away, and whom they will never convince of anything because said person does not consider what they have to say, they just automatically disagree with it. I honestly have nothing better to do while I am working on my homework, so I am on here a lot.

I have already considered what they have to say. I concluded that they're talking out of their ass. I grew tired of arguing with morons who instead of reading up on a topic just post whatever they heard from a homeless man standing outside wallmart.

Read this thread. Seriously read it. After that you can post about how homosexuality is unnatural or whatever (like cooking food and driving cars is) but I simply don't have any interest in responding to someone who brings up points which have been shown to be irrational and contradictory in this very thread.

Frigidus wrote:

jsholty4690 wrote:I'll throw my two cents in, even though it won't make a dent in any conversation.

I'm morally against gay marriage. I think its a sin and well everything else you've heard against it before. But, here comes the contravesy in my mind, I'm a strict Constitutionalist and looking at gay marriage, I think it is unconstitutional to deny them the same rights as heterosexuals. So although its against every single of my beliefs, I think gay marriage should be legal.

One more thing, I think the voters voices should be heard. I don't think that activist judges should make the decsion of whether or not a state should legalize gay marriage. I think it should be up to the populas.

What I think should happen is that all the states should hold referendums to vote on whether or not their state should have gay marriage or not (such as California, Vermont, and others). And both sides should not try to overturn the results, via the courts, like the gay rights activists did in California last year.

You seem to have a bit of a dichotomy in your opinion. You feel that gay marriage should be legal under the constitution but also feel that the people should decide on whether or not it is legal? Both are legitimate opinions, but they don't really match up.

QFT

That was kind of, the point of the Constitution
If people had voted to end segregation in the 60s, the vote would've been against it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

I'm not sure if anyone has posted this link yet (I don't feel like sifting through the countless pages of dialogue), but here it is. What I thought was peculiar is that it seems (to me at least) that the U.S. gets a lot of flak when it comes to gay rights, but if you look on the right hand column, only 7 countries fully perform gay marriage (8 if you want to count the U.S. because of Vermont, Massachusetts, ect.).

Simon Viavant wrote:

Frigidus wrote:

jsholty4690 wrote:I'll throw my two cents in, even though it won't make a dent in any conversation.

I'm morally against gay marriage. I think its a sin and well everything else you've heard against it before. But, here comes the contravesy in my mind, I'm a strict Constitutionalist and looking at gay marriage, I think it is unconstitutional to deny them the same rights as heterosexuals. So although its against every single of my beliefs, I think gay marriage should be legal.

One more thing, I think the voters voices should be heard. I don't think that activist judges should make the decsion of whether or not a state should legalize gay marriage. I think it should be up to the populas.

What I think should happen is that all the states should hold referendums to vote on whether or not their state should have gay marriage or not (such as California, Vermont, and others). And both sides should not try to overturn the results, via the courts, like the gay rights activists did in California last year.

You seem to have a bit of a dichotomy in your opinion. You feel that gay marriage should be legal under the constitution but also feel that the people should decide on whether or not it is legal? Both are legitimate opinions, but they don't really match up.

QFT

That was kind of, the point of the Constitution
If people had voted to end segregation in the 60s, the vote would've been against it.

I'll admit that it will be voted down in most states, as it has already. If you force people to do what they don't want to do there will be violence as we saw during the '60s (Not saying that ending segregation wasn't worth it), but if you want to go down that road you will face violence and be willing to have violent acts happen to you, well at least in my mind you do.

To me, it doesn't seem like either side will compromise. The gay rights community wants gay marriage, while their opponents, the most lenient ones, are only willing to give them civil unions. I don't really see anyone back down from their positions. My solution, is that give civil unions the full rights as marriages, but that doesn't solve the equality problem. The gay activists will still want the name changed to marriage and the religious activists will want to keep the 'gays' from getting 'married.' This obviously won't be an easily solved.

Snorri1234 wrote:

Burrito wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

Burrito wrote:I looks to me like you liberals are getting way outvoted. I just wish that all those intelligent people out there would actually say stuff in the forums.

Yeah strangely we already saw that a few pages into this thread. We concluded that those who said no weren't actually intelligent people but brainwashed morons who's computer-savvy makes them able to vote on a topic and nothing else. Since none of them stepped up to dispute that it's a fairly safe assumption.

Or maybe they have better things to do than to argue with some guy who lives a thousand miles away, and whom they will never convince of anything because said person does not consider what they have to say, they just automatically disagree with it. I honestly have nothing better to do while I am working on my homework, so I am on here a lot.

I have already considered what they have to say. I concluded that they're talking out of their ass. I grew tired of arguing with morons who instead of reading up on a topic just post whatever they heard from a homeless man standing outside wallmart.

Read this thread. Seriously read it. After that you can post about how homosexuality is unnatural or whatever (like cooking food and driving cars is) but I simply don't have any interest in responding to someone who brings up points which have been shown to be irrational and contradictory in this very thread.

This reminded me of a paper my history teacher read to us in my Government Class two years ago. This girl wrote, "Some people think that gay marriage is unnatural, like birth control and eye glasses."

Eye glasses.

Needless to say she didn't get an A on this paper.

jsholty4690 wrote:I'll throw my two cents in, even though it won't make a dent in any conversation.

I'm morally against gay marriage. I think its a sin and well everything else you've heard against it before. But, here comes the contravesy in my mind, I'm a strict Constitutionalist and looking at gay marriage, I think it is unconstitutional to deny them the same rights as heterosexuals. So although its against every single of my beliefs, I think gay marriage should be legal.

One more thing, I think the voters voices should be heard. I don't think that activist judges should make the decsion of whether or not a state should legalize gay marriage. I think it should be up to the populas.

What I think should happen is that all the states should hold referendums to vote on whether or not their state should have gay marriage or not (such as California, Vermont, and others). And both sides should not try to overturn the results, via the courts, like the gay rights activists did in California last year.

I can't even begin to tell you how big of a smile was on my face after reading your post (it's a good thing!). To finally hear someone from the other side of the argument admit their religious beliefs should not result in the discrimination of others is a pleasant reprieve, and I thank you for doing so