Hehe...Take that haters.

Professur said:
Do you really think they'd have supported gay marriages?
Click to expand...




I dont know that they would support it but again they arent around. That isnt to say they would or wouldnt. I think they believed more in freedom and equality.




Gonz said:
Be careful what you wish for, you just may get it.
Click to expand...



I am not wishing for it. I am saying it should be. It is written we are all equal under the law is it not? or as you have put it before some are more equal than others.
 
freako104 said:
I dont know that they would support it but again they arent around. That isnt to say they would or wouldnt. I think they believed more in freedom and equality.
Click to expand...


Really? Funny, they didn't where indians, blacks, or women were concerned. I really have to get me one of those US history books.
 
its true we had slaves and yes I have admitted we attacked the Native Americans. But not all of us did.
 
it was a chauvanistic time and there are societies that are still chauvanistic to be totally honest. it has gotten somewhat better for them here but they too had to fight for their rights
 
HomeLAN said:
They're proving a point at the expense of someone else's right to get married where they live. In my book, that's as wrong as opposing gay marriage is in your book.
Click to expand...

Sorry, HomeLan, but a few times each generation a question will arise to which the answer is obvious. This is such a case. If you are going to purport to treat homosexuals equally under the law then you must let them marry. If you don't wish them to be treated equally, admit it and go on about your business.
 
The question I'm trying to answer is whether anyone should remove existing rights to gain new ones. My opinion is no. Please try to look beyond the gay question and recognize that these means are wrong.

As we seem to be discussing lot lately, the ends do not always justify the means. If we take this situation and apply it to other areas and fights, you should have to starve for awhile, at least until the famines in Africa are dealt with. After all, why should you eat when other huimans with the same rights go hungry? Comfy with that thought?

Obviously, that's extreme, but it's the same logic.
 
HomeLAN said:
The question I'm trying to answer is whether anyone should remove existing rights to gain new ones. My opinion is no. Please try to look beyond the gay question and recognize that these means are wrong.

As we seem to be discussing lot lately, the ends do not always justify the means. If we take this situation and apply it to other areas and fights, you should have to starve for awhile, at least until the famines in Africa are dealt with. After all, why should you eat when other huimans with the same rights go hungry? Comfy with that thought?

Obviously, that's extreme, but it's the same logic.
Click to expand...

I see what you're trying to say, HomeLan, and you're not wrong. I feel that you have to take each case separately, on it's own merits. No, the ends do not always justify the means. That statement implies however, that sometimes they do. Some things (gay marriage, for instance) are so obviously the right thing to do (if you believe in America) IMHO, that a little civil disobedience is thoroughly justified. It's not like they were bombing people who disagree.
 
chcr said:
Some things (gay marriage, for instance) are so obviously the right thing to do (if you believe in America)
Click to expand...

Come again? If it was obviously the right thing to do, there'd be no question. But it's hardly as obvious as you make it out. FTR I'm against it. Not because I'm homophobic. But because I don't think that gay pairings are a marriage. But then, when I look at what marriage has become today .... maybe it is. But then, marriage today isn't what it's supposed to be either. I'd like to see marriage put straight, and an end to 55% divorce rates for starters. That's not exactly "'til death do us part" y'know.
 
Professur said:
Come again? If it was obviously the right thing to do, there'd be no question. But it's hardly as obvious as you make it out. FTR I'm against it. Not because I'm homophobic. But because I don't think that gay pairings are a marriage. But then, when I look at what marriage has become today .... maybe it is. But then, marriage today isn't what it's supposed to be either. I'd like to see marriage put straight, and an end to 55% divorce rates for starters. That's not exactly "'til death do us part" y'know.
Click to expand...

Prof, you misunderstand. Everyone wants to talk about treating gays equally. If you're going to treat them equally, you must let partners marry. If it offends you, feel free to be offended. You cannot however deny them the "priviledge" of marriage and make any pretense of equal treatment. :shrug: Your personal feelings have no bearing, they are either equal or they are not. It's such a simple question to spend so much time and effort debating.
 
No, I don't misunderstand. I understand it very clearly. And it's not about taking offence. And I can deny them the privledge, in the name of preserving something greater. It's called the Family. You may have heard of it. Used to be popular.

And if my personal feelings have no bearing, why should theirs? After all, isn't marriage about feelings? Or is it just about equal insurance coverage?
 
if your feelings have no bearing theirs should not either Prof. But if your feelings mean something then so should theirs. as far as family goes isnt it love that makes it a family?
 
And as I've said before, the fact that my wife had a hysterectomy before we were married has no bearing on the way we feel about each other, but I guess by your definition we aren't allowed to be married, regardless of personal feelings. Equal treatment, you don't want gays to have it. Okay, fine for you. You cannot, however, legislate against it.
 
chcr said:
I see what you're trying to say, HomeLan, and you're not wrong. I feel that you have to take each case separately, on it's own merits. No, the ends do not always justify the means. That statement implies however, that sometimes they do. Some things (gay marriage, for instance) are so obviously the right thing to do (if you believe in America) IMHO, that a little civil disobedience is thoroughly justified. It's not like they were bombing people who disagree.
Click to expand...

You and I disagree about when that standard applies. And despite your efforts to purport otherwise, that makes me neither a hatemonger nor a homophobe. Stating that as black and white choice was a cheap shot on your part.
 
*It's like arguing colours with blind men*

Lemme try and put this into terms you guys can understand. If a guy went to court suing the gov't because he wanted a baby, and couldn't give birth himself, you'd think he was an idiot, wouldn't you?
 
HomeLAN said:
You and I disagree about when that standard applies. And despite your efforts to purport otherwise, that makes me neither a hatemonger nor a homophobe. Stating that as black and white choice was a cheap shot on your part.
Click to expand...



Sorry, what did I miss? I thought you didn't care whether or not they got married. Oh, I see, I didn't mean you personally, but American society. I didn't intend it as a cheap shot at you, I'm sorry it looked that way. As I stated (maybe I should have stated it more than once) these are my opinions, I'm aware there are others. It's amazing to me that something so blindingly obvious to me is so obscure to someone else, but it isn't the first or last time that will ever happen.

I pretty much always think I'm right and everone else is wrong usntil proven otherwise. :shrug:


Prof said:
Lemme try and put this into terms you guys can understand. If a guy went to court suing the gov't because he wanted a baby, and couldn't give birth himself, you'd think he was an idiot, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid I found that remarkably obtuse.
 
Professur said:
*It's like arguing colours with blind men*

Lemme try and put this into terms you guys can understand. If a guy went to court suing the gov't because he wanted a baby, and couldn't give birth himself, you'd think he was an idiot, wouldn't you?
Click to expand...



Id find it to be a waste of money and time and more shit cramping our overcrowded court system as well as him being an idiot. but thats not what this is about. this is about them getting married
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top