Cheapass24
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 17 (100%)
Am i the only one that clicked this because I thought it said Morons are homophobic?
only lazy people "instinctively" distrust stats. i instinctively distrust people who ignore statistics, lacking the methodological or mathematical know-how to discuss or dispute them.
i instinctively distrust people who ignore statistics, lacking the methodological or mathematical know-how to discuss or dispute them.
Are you telling me that this "difference" inherently precludes the validity of same-sex marriages, to the point where you can use it as the crux of your argument to deny them rights offered to opposite-sex couples?
Try to make this not sound bigoted. Frankly, I don't think you're up to it.
Any relationship and family can turn out a billion different ways, based on a billion different factors, influences, conditions, situations, personalities, et cetera. There are never guarantees. But you are using the single factor of the parents being same-sex to preclude even the opportunity for same-sex parents having the same opportunities to try, and either succeed or fail or achieve any degree of the two to raise families, that opposite-sex couples do.
I find the fact that you only chose to reply to a tiny snippet of my post fairly telling that you don't have a leg to stand on. Look, you can be bigoted, that is your right and prerogative. Just don't pretend that you aren't.
As stated above, yes. As also stated above, this is no longer the question.Women and men are different from each other, on a fundamental level. If this is true, then it stands to reason that a relationship between two members of the same sex, will be different from two members of the opposite sex. A heterosexual relationship will not be the same as a homosexual relationship.
Women are fundamentally different from men, so why should we have applied to them the same voting rights as men? Because most certainly, there were plenty of explanations out there for why women being able to vote would be "unstable," 150 years ago.The institution of marriage was established to address heterosexual relationships. It is intended to support stable families. Why should it be applied to homosexual relationships, when they are fundamentally different from heterosexual relationships?
Yeah, and black people in the United States used to be a minority who wanted to be able to "buck the trend" of not being able to vote.Homosexual marriage is an example of an extreme minority group attempting to buck that trend.
Hah! The old "some of my best friends are gay" cop-out. Mercy me.I genuinely don't think I'm bigoted. I do object to homosexuality on a religious and personal basis, but I have never allowed that to affect how I treat homosexuals specifically. I have more real-life experience with homosexuals than most people. I've worked with them before, and even spent two years of college living in the same room as one. I found we were able to be quite friendly, despite the disparity in our lifestyles.
it all comes down to equality, and no matter how much you think your god loves you and hates homosexuals we're all people.
But since you asked, I suppose I would like to hear his homosexual apocalypse theory.
I see no difference in the question of should gay people be allowed to be married than should black people be allowed to be married. I think we should strive for a government that see us all as equals, and rights should be the same for all people who are doing no harm to others. And I wish people would vote accordingly regardless of their own personal moral decisions.
I respect religious people who choose to spread their moral code through their own example. I despise religious people that try to impose their will on others.
I have no homosexual apocalypse theory. My point was that IF the behavior was universally practiced (which it almost certainly won't be) it would bring disaster upon our species. Knowing this, it would logically introduce the idea that it's not a good thing, since at the individual level it results in the termination of the genetic line (unless reproductive genetic material is obtained from a willing third party, assuming that there is one).
First I'd like to respond to the second half of that. When a person goes to the polls and votes according to their conscience and beliefs, are they imposing their will on others? In other words, is voting a form of imposing your will? Have you yet, or do you plan to vote at any point in the future? Do you believe that by so doing you will be imposing your will upon society? Or do you believe that just by speaking their mind, a person is therefore imposing their will on others?
But anger and violence are not the way. Open discussion and an attempt to understand one another are the only way we're ever going to reach an acceptable arrangement as a society.
There really is no discussion to be had on this because your religion doesn't really allow you to change your mind.
Some people don't deserve to be debated with. In my view, wanting to curtail the behaviors of other people who have no effect on your life puts you in a position where you don't deserve to be debated with. The level of folly underlying your claims, and the ease with which they were taken apart, is something else that shows you don't belong here.
Two things:
1) You're talking about something that is as unlikely to occur as...well, as unlikely as the second coming of Christ. Or, if you take offense to that metaphor, as unlikely as a Chicago Cubs World Series. So what's the point of saying something is bad given everyone does it, if, in fact, everyone does not do it?
2) You're also assuming that a population of 6 close to 7 Billion people, who've been ****ing and reproducing as long as we've been here, will suddenly stop ****ing and reproducing. Homosexual relationships, pregnancies, and parenthood are independent events, by and large. If nothing else, the modern era has shown just how detached the idea of "marriage" can be from "parenthood." This all more or less renders your point moot.
But I'm not done yet.
3) If you choose to ignore #1, let us entertain the inverse of your universal homosexuality means we'll all die out after one generation oversimiplified nonsensical juvenile theory. Why is this relevant if, given the institution we have globally now (let's call it the ****" and have as many kids as possible") lead to extinction on a mass level when we reach a population threshold where we can no longer maintain a balance between the planet's resources and providing persons with adequate resources to survive? In short, I'm pointing out that exponential population growth is a path to environmental disaster, and disaster for the human race as well.
So your argument fell apart quite a while back.
You choose to ignore that I pointed out the folly in all of your claims, instead cherry picking the last line of my post to attack that, as if it is the only thing I said to you. Should I assume you have nothing to say in response to my retort of your original claims?
Irrelevant. When my will is "hey, let those people do what they want," and your will is "**** those queers, they can't have what I have," then our wills aren't parallel. They aren't equal. My will is more righteous than yours. You suffer the folly of pride by thinking your life choices are superior to others. Sinner.
This is where you're wrong. I think as an American it's you responsibility to vote for what's best for the country and your countrymen. And while gay marriage in no way benefits you or your beliefs, it certainly does not stand in your way.
How would you feel if laws were put in place that limited the legal privileges of mormons?