Gay Marriages

[Dan]

Hey Arvestaked. you seem to be one of the few sane people on here (and in general too), along with ckbejug. well said, you two.

[Arvestaked]

Actually, I am not sane. I am a goddamn emotionally troubled nutcase. But I am also a flippin' genius so that makes up for a lot.

[fstkhnan]

Originally posted by Dan Hey Arvestaked. you seem to be one of the few sane people on here (and in general too), along with ckbejug. well said, you two.

are u trying to start an arguement?lol

[fstkhnan]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Arvestaked Sexual preference has nothing to do with what kind of person someone is. There are good and bad of both sides and it will always be that way. I am not saying that every gay person I have come in contact with, I liked. That is not true. But the population among homosexuals that is good is the same percentage as it would be among heterosexuals and those are deserving of as much respect. [/QUOT

she just happened to be, the worst coach and person ive ever met, and since she's a lesbian, I totally changed my mind about homosexuals......I used to care less before lol

[Dan]

Originally posted by fstkhnan are u trying to start an arguement?lol

no. are you being paranoid? helll yes!!! get off my back.

she just happened to be, the worst coach and person ive ever met, and since she's a lesbian, I totally changed my mind about homosexuals......I used to care less before lol

Way to go. How very smart of you..... *cough* sarcasm *cough*

[fstkhnan]

yeah i was expecting that from u !lol

[Anonymouse]

I was never out to condemn homosexuals. In fact what they do in their private lives is none of my concern. Hell, I've met many homosexuals. Real cool people. Does this mean I approve of their behavior? No. I think it is morally wrong. However, that is not for me to decide.

Furthermore, my objection to granting them marriage is purely on moral grounds, but with a democratic state, "morality" becomes a matter of majorities, thus the relativism that pervades. The number one virtue of the gay rights organizations is tolerance. The word tolerance takes on a whole new meaning when tossed out by liberals. To be tolerant no longer means to be polite and respectful in personal dealings with individuals and ideas you don t agree with. To be tolerant now means that one must embrace, love, and accept all liberal ideas and lifestyles. Dan, I think youre cool. I'm not here to label you or chastise you. My disagreement is purely my own. Don't listen to these vociferous lefties here. That is nothing to do with me not agreeing with that said lifestyle.

Of course I'm singling out the liberal fanatics here. The battle cry of these liberal groups is "Celebrate Diversity!" Anyone who has spent one week in a public university has had this phrase shoved down his throat a million times. What is quite interesting is that the only celebration is of liberal ideas and orthodoxy. Those heretics who do not accept our "progressive society's" beliefs on feminism, forced integration, abortion, and homosexuality are to be eternally driven out of the liberal Eden and subject to a lifetime of ridicule and disdain for their sins.

[Dan]

To be tolerant now means that one must embrace, love, and accept all liberal ideas and lifestyles.

No no.. I disagree with today's notion of tolerance. In fact, I despise it. I don't want acceptance or love from everyone. I am aware that many will not like my choices and lifestyle, just like I will not like others' choices and lifestyle. However, that does not justify the fact that people call for banning gay marriages. Laws are separate from personal opinions. If I think white people are superior, would I advocate banning interracial marriage? No. I don't care. It's none of my business. I could perhaps go on an awareness campaign to get people on my side with regards to opinions, which is perfectly OK. But I would NOT ask for the banning of interracial marriages, no matter how much I despise them (hypothetically).

[Arvestaked]

Originally posted by Anonymouse I was never out to condemn homosexuals. In fact what they do in their private lives is none of my concern. Hell, I've met many homosexuals. Real cool people. Does this mean I approve of their behavior? No. I think it is morally wrong. However, that is not for me to decide.

Furthermore, my objection to granting them marriage is purely on moral grounds, but with a democratic state, "morality" becomes a matter of majorities, thus the relativism that pervades. The number one virtue of the gay rights organizations is tolerance. The word tolerance takes on a whole new meaning when tossed out by liberals. To be tolerant no longer means to be polite and respectful in personal dealings with individuals and ideas you don t agree with. To be tolerant now means that one must embrace, love, and accept all liberal ideas and lifestyles. Dan, I think youre cool. I'm not here to label you or chastise you. My disagreement is purely my own. Don't listen to these vociferous lefties here. That is nothing to do with me not agreeing with that said lifestyle.

Of course I'm singling out the liberal fanatics here. The battle cry of these liberal groups is "Celebrate Diversity!" Anyone who has spent one week in a public university has had this phrase shoved down his throat a million times. What is quite interesting is that the only celebration is of liberal ideas and orthodoxy. Those heretics who do not accept our "progressive society's" beliefs on feminism, forced integration, abortion, and homosexuality are to be eternally driven out of the liberal Eden and subject to a lifetime of ridicule and disdain for their sins.

First of all I am not a liberal. I am neither liberal nor conservative. And my ideas have not been influenced by anyone, especially some University (I have never attended one). So stop resorting to party bashing to fill up space. It is completely meaningless.

Secondly, say what you will about morality being defined by the majority but if it is unconstitutional under this government, who gives a rats scrotum what the majority thinks. Again, separation of church and state. The only way it can be viewed in any moral light is through the thin pages of a bible and that becomes irrelevant in the context of lawmaking, or at least should be.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by Arvestaked First of all I am not a liberal. I am neither liberal nor conservative. And my ideas have not been influenced by anyone, especially some University (I have never attended one). So stop resorting to party bashing to fill up space. It is completely meaningless.

Secondly, say what you will about morality being defined by the majority but if it is unconstitutional under this government, who gives a rats scrotum what the majority thinks. Again, separation of church and state. The only way it can be viewed in any moral light is through the thin pages of a bible and that becomes irrelevant in the context of lawmaking, or at least should be.

Everyones ideas are influenced by everyone else, sorry to dissapoint you. Everytime you read, you are reading someone elses ideas who in turn is using someone elses. I hate to dissapoint your "uniqueness". I never used the Bible once in my argument nerfbrain. Stop assuming things. Do you think the Framers were Atheists? They were Deists. This has nothing to do with the Constitutional Separation of Church and State, since todays society is a pale comparison of what the American Republic was to the Framers. Thus anything these days can be "unconstitutional" since that is the inherent flaw in language that can be interpreted in any way.