it's the judges stupid
vote republican
vote republican
toldailytopic: Gay-marriage ban is ruled unconstitutional.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
It's very sad (and weird) how you can't comprehend someone basing their opinion on anything other than what they stand to gain personally. :nono:
Hello, thanks for stopping by Earth! Hope you can stay a while. Around here we recognize this thing called society and how important it is to have stuff like criminal laws and behavioral standards. We've learned over the course of history (somewhere around day two, I believe) that not having these things is a very, very bad idea.
So what's it like on your planet? You sit and watch while other people set their children on fire, you say? That's very interesting.
:rotfl:
How does one go about imposing an opinion, exactly? :think:
Didn't you just mark LadyGreenEyes as hateful? You should stop imposing your opinion or something.
Well, see, there are all these people who are too lazy to think. And then there are all these other people who like to help out those people and tell them what to think. Sometimes those people don't get why other people have a different opinion. Or understand that opinion those other people have.
Sometimes those people come to TOL and go on and on about how they don't get it how other people can have an opinion someone didn't give them. And how confused they are by that.
Yeah, it's a real problem in America. But we're working on it. :thumb:
Last edited:
PureX
Well-known member
You didn't answer any of Alexandros' very reasonable questions, instead you respond with arrogance and insults. You're capable of far better than this. I've seen it. Or perhaps you have no answer but your own loathing when it comes to the subject of homosexuals?
PaladinGirl
New member
Sickening. I heard about this yesterday while I was in a Medicab with another Catholic guy and a Catholic priest (what a coincidence lol) and I saw a text on my mobile phone telling me about it. I was actually kind of shocked because I didn't realize that the courts were going to rule on it again. But yeah, it just sickens me that the liberal "gay rights" activists have won again.
Yes it is, whether you people like it or not. And frankly, your opinion means absolutely squat.
I can't stand the bigotry and prejudice involved, I certainly can't stand the homicidal hatred expressed by many Christians, but I'll tell you what: it's exactly this presumptuous, snide, arrogant attitude that I despise the most. If Christians--with their high divorce rates--want to judge the quality of someone else's romance and marriage, go right on ahead, but don't be so surprised when more and more people ignore you. None of you Pharisees have a leg to stand on anymore.
PureX
Well-known member
I agree. The more vicious and hateful the reaction, the less sympathy it will find in the general public.
First, I challenged that his position was that of caring nothing for what others do, save when it benefits one personally to do so. Then answered the question he asked five times in his post by illustrating the necessity of law and order. Following that I mocked his claim that we've progressed socially, in this context. Then pointed out he was being hypocritical. Finally, I rounded out my answer to this post by responding to his absurd charge that anyone on this side of the issue must just want to control everyone else's body by charging that he's a moron who can't think for himself.
When appropriate, yes. It would not have been appropriate here.
See above.
What's that PureX just said about answering with nothing but loathing?
"Bigotry! Prejudice! Homicidal hatred! Also hypocrisy or something!"
View attachment 16953
all you need is a few more parades to win us over
Try to keep up with the convo. No one's suggesting anyone's speaking for anyone else. What I suggested was that it was hilarious that PureX implied my post constituted nothing but loathing and no answer when you immediately followed with a post he agreed with...that was no answer and nothing but loathing.
:think:
And, yeah, it was hilarious. :chuckle:
"Bigots! Bigots, I say! Ignorant, spiteful ones! Who fly second class or something!"
PureX
Well-known member
Which had nothing to do with his question. You were being asked how two people of the same sex being married negatively effects you.
Well, as same-sex marriage has no effect on "law and order", you can see how we might not have recognized this as an "answer". Rather, it appears as if you were implying that as long as same sex marriage is against the law, it effects law and order when people of the same sex get married (which they couldn't legally do). But I don't believe you would actually assert something that silly, so I had to dismiss it. After all, that would be an absurd example of 'circular logic'.
Well, given the fact that he made that claim in the first place would indicate that at least he has progressed socially, in this context. Don't you think? And the fact that we are now discussing a legal judgment in favor of same-sex marriage by a state superior court would surely seem to confirm the idea that others have advanced, socially, regarding the issue as well.
Which again, had nothing to do with the questions you were being asked, and certainly did appear to be the old 'obfuscation by attack' method of response that we see all too often around here.
Well, frankly, your reply didn't do much to prove that assertion wrong, now did it.
Quincy
New member
I don't really care what happens in California, or any state outside my own for that matter. It's up to the people who live there. If the people there vote gay marriage legal then that is their business, none of mine. What secular government ordains does not equal what God ordains. It's a sad day when people start to get so paranoid and controlling that they conflate modern government with God. Give no government theocratic powers, least the people in it might not be in your particular faith/denomination. Keeping government separate from theocratic influence is one thing protecting our rights to worship as we want/need......
I was challenging that his position was that of caring nothing for what others do, save when it benefits one personally to do so. The position I was challenging was not the questions which I later answered, so that this doesn't answer those questions is as relevant as it not being made of Chinese tea.
Of course it's an answer. I don't recall anyone specifying that any answers given must be answers you or Alexandros agree with. :dizzy:
Then let me help you out. Here's "the questions":
- How does it impact you personally what two random people you've never met claim as the status of their relationship?
- Is it going to directly affect your own prospects of entering heaven if Suzy and Jennifer down the street tie the knot?
- Why do you care?
- Why do you care when others do it?
- Why do you care what others are doing with their own reproductive organs?
You don't have to agree with the answer but pretending it's not an answer is rather irrational, innit?
How do you figure? Based on the assumption that you and he are correct on this issue? If you were, then that would indeed be progress. But that assumption was what I was mocking.
Like in your post right here, for example. Where you likewise said some stuff and introduced some opinions that didn't have anything to do with your original charge that I hadn't answered his questions. But who cares, since neither of us have failed to address that central point in the process?
Sorry if you didn't find my answer persuasive. But at least now you can't honestly claim, a second time, that I didn't provide one. :idunno:
jeffblue101
New member
A Scene from the Mayor’s Office in San Francisco
No author known; edited by Steve Ray
“Next.”
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Names?”
:“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers? You can’t get married.”
“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That would be incest!”
“Incest?” No, we are not gay.”
“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re only issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can each marry a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“Aha! So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea is that marriage is just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, geez, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Says who? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage only to couples. Hey, the more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
“All right, all right. Next.”
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“What are your names?”
“David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“There’s no other man, just me. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to get my two personalities married. Maybe by marrying myself I can get myself back together, get some unity to my life. Maybe I can even file a joint income tax return.”
“Get out of here! Your crazy! Next!”
“Hello, we’re here to get married.”
“Names?”
“Sam Jones and Rover.”
Rover? A dog? That does it I quit. You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
No author known; edited by Steve Ray
“Next.”
“Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license.”
“Names?”
:“Tim and Jim Jones.”
“Jones? Are you related? I see a resemblance.”
“Yes, we’re brothers.”
“Brothers? You can’t get married.”
“Why not? Aren’t you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?”
“Yes, thousands. But we haven’t had any siblings. That would be incest!”
“Incest?” No, we are not gay.”
“Not gay? Then why do you want to get married?”
“For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don’t have any other prospects.”
“But we’re only issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who’ve been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can each marry a woman.”
“Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I’m straight doesn’t mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim.”
“And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?”
“All right, all right. I’ll give you your license. Next.”
“Hi. We are here to get married.”
“Names?”
“John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson.”
“Who wants to marry whom?”
“We all want to marry each other.”
“But there are four of you!”
“That’s right. You see, we’re all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship.”
“But we’ve only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples.”
“Aha! So you’re discriminating against bisexuals!”
“No, it’s just that, well, the traditional idea is that marriage is just for couples.”
“Since when are you standing on tradition?”
“Well, geez, you have to draw the line somewhere.”
“Says who? There’s no logical reason to limit marriage only to couples. Hey, the more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!”
“All right, all right. Next.”
“Hello, I’d like a marriage license.”
“What are your names?”
“David Deets.”
“And the other man?”
“There’s no other man, just me. I want to marry myself.”
“Marry yourself? What do you mean?”
“Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to get my two personalities married. Maybe by marrying myself I can get myself back together, get some unity to my life. Maybe I can even file a joint income tax return.”
“Get out of here! Your crazy! Next!”
“Hello, we’re here to get married.”
“Names?”
“Sam Jones and Rover.”
Rover? A dog? That does it I quit. You people are making a mockery of marriage!!”
PureX
Well-known member
When black people wanted to be able to sit anywhere on the bus, the white people around them were just sure that it was the first sign of total social destruction. They were convinced that the next thing these blacks would want would be to be allowed to vote, and then to elect black people to public office! And to the white's way of thinking, this would spell the end of their 'way of life' as they'd always known it.
And they were right. Black people did demand more than just to sit wherever they wanted on the bus. They did demand the right to vote. And they did elect black people into public office. And they did put an end to life as it had been, before. But it turned out that the changes weren't so dower for white people after all, and they made life a lot better for a whole lot of other people who had been suffering, before. So it wasn't such a bad thing after all.
Homosexuals are already on the march. They already can go wherever they want to in our society, and they can already vote, and they have already elected many fellow homosexuals into public office, and life as it had been is already changing. Sorry, dude, but you're going to have to accept it. Just as the racists of decades past had to accept desegregation and the abolition of the 'Jim Crow' laws.
But just as before, the world is not going to fall apart. Although it will not be the same, either. But a lot of people who had been made to suffer in the past, will no longer have to suffer as they once did, and the people who were responsible for that suffering will not be significantly harmed by the changes. All our crying and whining and visions of doom will once again prove to be mostly internalized fear, as we're forced to accept the changes happening around us.
I'm not black, but I'm glad for all those changes that happened a few decades ago, because I don't want to be part of a white oppressor class/race. And I'm not gay, either, but I'll be glad when homosexuals finally have all the same rights as everyone else, for the same reason. I don't like to see other people suffer, and I especially don't want them to suffer for my sake. Especially when ending that suffering doesn't really hurt me, or anyone else.
Secularists vs Christendom
Dark Radiance
New member
I hope the servers for the wedding registrys at department stores don't crash...
Iconoclast
New member
Just because two people are emotionally and relationally stunted to the point of having a sexual dysfunction, doesn't mean that they can't love each other.
If we as a society don't recognize the nature of their relationships then they would have to take the emotional and psychological steps necessary to deal with their fears. Instead they project onto society. Don't you all get this? It is you all who have the problem not them. If you would just let them try to meet all the normal emotional psychological and relational needs that everyone has to meet through their sexual dysfunction then everything would be okay. Don't you get it? They are really normal and just like all of you.
If we as a society don't recognize the nature of their relationships then they would have to take the emotional and psychological steps necessary to deal with their fears. Instead they project onto society. Don't you all get this? It is you all who have the problem not them. If you would just let them try to meet all the normal emotional psychological and relational needs that everyone has to meet through their sexual dysfunction then everything would be okay. Don't you get it? They are really normal and just like all of you.
Invest in law firms that specialize in divorce.
Long term relationships are practically non existent in the homosexual so-called "community".