It also shows that minors are capable of making rational descisions contrary to the belief of many. It just shows that age is not a factor in rationality. I have seen many adults with not as much sense.
I respectfully disagree. Pointing out an obscure exception does not prove the capabilities of any group on general.
For reasons of legality and indemnity, I propose that all secular people, whether homosexual or heterosexual, be recognized by civil union.
For the millionth time, this is another way of saying "I'm too bigoted to allow gays to marry, so let those faggots have civil union and drink out of a different drinking fountain than I am..."
There is a reason why gay people in general don't accept this bullshit proposal that you and other bigots (yes, I'm accusing you of bigotry) always seem to propose. Separate can never be equal.
Yes they are because it is defiling the sanctity that God instituted. I'm not saying that it isn't a bunch of horse shit, I am simply saying that if everyone respects the role of the other, we might actually find a compromise.
So, I take it you think black people should only equal 3/5 of a real person? Again, a bullshit way of saying "I'm too bigoted to want other people to have the same rights as I do..."
Like it or not, marriage has always been defined as being between a man and a woman...
And like it or not, marriage was always defined as between a man and a woman of the same race. It was defined that way even before this country was founded. I take it you're also against interracial marriage? Oh gee, I suppose my brother should be thrown in jail?
Sorry for the incivility. I've been involved in this argument for years now and have heard every bullshit arguments put forth, including yours. If you can't see it's pure bullshit, there's no point in me explaining it to you.
Ok, let me briefly explain why your arguments are bullshit.
Argument #1: marriage is religious, therefore we should only have civil union for everybody.
This argument is bullshit because legally recognized religious marriage seized to exist once the constitution was written and ratified. The legal marriage is a secular institution and has nothing to do with religious ceremonies. Sure, it originated from a religious institution, but this country was also originated from a slavery institution. Do we really want to bring back slavery?
Pure bullshit.
Argument #2: Let's compromise.
Again, pure bullshit. The Ugandan Parliament is about to pass a bill that will give the death penalty to homosexuals. Let's compromise. Let's put them in jail for 30 years instead.
Compromise in regard to human rights is pure bullshit.
Argument #3: Marriage has always been between a man and a woman.
Argument from tradition is almost always bullshit. It was always been the case that women were inferior and therefore incapable of voting or making political decisions. Do you want to go down that route? Pure bullshit.
Argument #4: Let's call it something else to let the religious be happy and keep the tradition.
This is a combination of arguments 1, 2, and 3. I'm a programmer by nature, and what I know is if you put garbage in you're going to get garbage out. In this case, you put 3 bullshit arguments into a blender, you're going to get a bullshit shake.
You guys can try to make arguments on top of arguments all you want. No matter how much perfume you pour onto it, it's still a pile of shit.
And I have only been saying this a million times in the past. Killing marriage and putting civil union in its place is exactly what the fundamentalists want. They have been saying for many years that homosexuals want to destroy the institution of marriage. By literally destroying marriage as you people propose, we would lose any hope of gaining the support of moderates. Imagine fox news headline for the next 10 years "homosexuals destroyed marriage!"
Again, I really am quite puzzled how you people could say you support gay rights but then would propose something so ridiculous as civil union. Not accusing anyone of anything, but are you sure you're as tolerant as you say you are?
If instead of allowing interracial marriage the justices decided to throw out marriage completely and put civil union in its place in order to keep the "traditional marriage of one man and one woman of the same race", there would have been riots, mass killings, and possibly a civil war.
Obviously if you get married at a courthouse versus a church, there is no controversy. Therefore I am obviously referring to the stipulation that in the event that gay marriages are approved, that pastors are not forced to marry gay couples by federal or state law. THAT would be where Pastor Joe has to battle his conscience.
In other words, you've been arguing against a strawman. End of story.
Iano, I normally don't like to converse with you since you seem to be incapable of speaking (writing) in a linear matter. I originally wanted to point this out, but decided not to because I was afraid you might pull off one of your incoherent speaking-in-tongues thing again. But since someone else posted a question about a statement you made, I might as well point out something else.
iano writes:
My way of seeing things considers a child to have a right to be raised by it's biological parents. Whilst the State cannot force such a situation, it can encourage such a situation and dissuade deviance from that situation. Gay marriage leads to gay parenting leads to denial of the above rights.
My question to you is would you rather orphans grow up in orphanages and then get kicked out when the turned 18? I ask this since your tone seem to imply you do not want gay people to raise children.
I have an engineer friend from one of my past jobs who grew up in the system and finally went out to the world on his own when he turned 18. He's surprisingly open-minded and very pleasant to be around with. That said, he has repeatedly told me that there was nothing he wanted more than to be adopted when he was in the system regardless of whether his adopted parents be gay or straight.
I also have another friend from college who was adopted by a lesbian couple when he was little. He is now married to a woman. During a gay rights advocate meeting in the school I went to, he gave a speech telling us how grateful he was everyday of his life for being adopted by two wonderful moms.
I'm asking you if you'd rather see all orphans who aren't getting adopted by straight people to grow up in the system than seeing gay married people adopt them?
I think homosexuals should have the right to marry, but it gets shot down every time it is left to a popular vote. That's also bullshit.
I know of no human right issue in the past that passed via popular vote. If the populous at large recognizes the said issue as a human right violation, it wouldn't have been an issue in the first place.
I was just looking through some vids on youtube and I found this puppy. Have you ever heard so much bullshit coming from someone on stage before? I haven't. It's great stuff: same sex marriage == 9/11.
Gay people have been blamed for earthquakes, hurricanes, wars, starvation, famine, floods, etc. We can now add 2 more to the list. Pope blames gay people as a threat to creation and a threat to world peace.
My inability to change my sexual orientation doesn't mean that other people cannot.
I've been reading your posts in horror, CS.
(1) Being able to change or not has absolutely nothing to do with the gay rights movement. I'm a straight married man. If I decide tonight to dump my wife and start sleeping with other men, I ought to be able to do so without fearing the tyranny of the majority. If I decide to have a divorce tomorrow and then marry another man the next day, I ought to be able to do that as well.
Again, being able to change or not has nothing to do with any human rights movement. So, stop focusing on this bloody diversion.
(2) You basically say that you (a straight person) cannot change your sexuality but that you believe other people (especially gay people) can and should change.
Why am I such a jackass about this topic? Your train of thought was what ultimately led to bullshit things like Paragraph 175. And despite what we've learned from history, we still have jackasses like you being able to vote and share your bigoted opinion.
™ Version 4.2
(1)