What do conservatives have to gain from being against gay marriage/rights?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT
 

Kopikatsu:
Entirely not true. The entire infrastructure would have to be changed to accommodate it. There are over 1,100 rights and responsibilities that come with legal marriage. Suddenly, anywhere from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of couples get thousands of dollars in tax breaks at a time when taxes desperately need to be increased because they've been at historical lows for many years and we're deep in debt. Not to mention the added weight on the already overburdened courts to get all of these things processed (Not the marriage in itself, but also the legal parts of the aforementioned 1,100).

A one time spike of an extra 100,000-200,000 couples filing joint tax returns is not "changing the entire infrastructure". Like I said before, you're not always better off in terms of tax and welfare if you're married, it's difficult to impossible to prove whether the government would actually be notably worse off if all the married gay couples were suddenly covered by federal laws.

I'm sure no public servant likes the idea of possibly having a slightly heavier workload but that's their job and it's one of the weakest excuses I've heard to not recognise same-sex marriages.

xDarc:
snip

Are you actually going to address any of the substantive points that people have been raising about the issue or are you just going to complain ad nauseam about how stupid the electorate is for not giving you the outcome that you wanted?

Honestly, I think the entire gay marriage thing is sort of a means to distract people from the fact that we have a giant wall of debt that needs to get crunched out and it likely will impact all of our lives going forward. In fact, it will probably impact are lives much more than anything resulting from the gay marriage stuff.

I'm all for legitimizing gay marriage as the only reason I'd be against it is the possibility of some people exploiting it for ill reasons, though I don't identify myself as a conservative. Hardcore conservatives are a strange bunch.

Colt47:
In fact, it will probably impact are lives much more than anything resulting from the gay marriage stuff.

Assuming you aren't a gay person wanting to get married.

Eshay Adlay:
The same applies to marriages, marriages need a less broad definition.

Do you even listen to yourself? Earlier you said

Eshay Adlay:
Marriage always has been a vague concept.

So which is it? Is marriage a vague concept, or does it need a less broad definition? It can't be both.

3. You and your girlfriend aren't married because you haven't had a religious ceremony? Are you really that dumb?

My father and his new wife didn't have a religious ceremony. They went to a courthouse, signed some paperwork, and were on a plane to their honeymoon two hours later. Are they not married? Because I've seen the paperwork.

Also, you may have noticed that the moderation staff really doesn't care for name calling and insults. You might want to cut back on that.

Eshay Adlay:
I had a perfect counter image for that but I lost it. I will get back to you soon.

This is not a image contest. I drew a comparison between you and the racist pricks you see on the lower picture. And more so, hear what you think is the difference between you and them.

Eshay Adlay:

ten.to.ten:
Snip for idiots

I suppose we are now living before 2000 then idiot? In case you didn't notice, definitions have changed. Civil Unions have essentially replaced "Marriage" in the legal sense. It provides the exact same benefits. Why do you gay people even want a religious ceremony? That's right, because you are all bigots. You hatefull homosexuals just hate religions and want to put yourself ahead of them. I should report you for your bigotry right now.

Aris Khandr:
HURR DURR I AM SO STUPID!!

Because
1. It offends just about every religion if you compare them to each other. They are completely different. The same applies to marriages, marriages need a less broad definition.
2. Your "ownership" argument is flawed. The ideals of it have been passed down. Just about every major religion on the planet defines marriage as between a man and a woman. If you want to defile all those religions so you can pander to a bunch of filthy degenerates then be my guest.
3. You and your girlfriend aren't married because you haven't had a religious ceremony? Are you really that dumb?

thaluikhain:
snip

They have wedding ceremonies, not a true religious marriage.

JimB:
Snipped to prevent people from getting headaches from your arguments

May I point out again that there is a difference between marriage and legal civil unions, you can get the latter without the former, but you cannot get the former without the latter. Not so hard to understand. Also marriage doesn't just exist in the United States. #commit.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding about marriage law. Only in five states of the US is a legal relationship status called "civil union" officially recognised. In all states and territories "marriage" is recognised and performed, and you can have a marriage with or without a religious ceremony, and authorised ministers of religion are only one of the many people who can solemnise a marriage. This whole thing about "civil unions" is something you're just making up in your own head that has nothing to do with reality.

When I had my civil union (different from marriage) I chose not to have a ceremony, it was solemnised by a registrar at my state's registry of births, deaths and marriages. Since I'm not religious, when I eventually upgrade from a civil union to a full marriage I will probably do it in a similar way, or if I have a ceremony it will be a small one with a civil celebrant and there will be no religious presence as part of it. It won't be any less of a marriage though, no matter how it is formalised, and I will have the exact same legal status in the state I get married in as a straight couple would or a couple who got married in a church would.

Eshay Adlay:
May I point out again that there is a difference between marriage and legal civil unions; you can get the latter without the former, but you cannot get the former without the latter.

You may, but for so long as secular governments continue to hand out marriage licenses, I will find the difference between them inconsequential even by my ultra-precise standards of semantics.

Eshay Adlay:
Also marriage doesn't just exist in the United States.

Given that I cannot reasonably expect to affect marriage laws in a nation I do not live in or have citizenship in, I cannot bring myself to care overmuch about those other nations' stances on gay marriage.

JimB:

Eshay Adlay:
Also marriage doesn't just exist in the United States.

Given that I cannot reasonably expect to affect marriage laws in a nation I do not live in or have citizenship in, I cannot bring myself to care overmuch about those other nations' stances on gay marriage.

No, he's got a point there, even if it's not the one he wanted to make. It's time for the USA to look beyond its borders and adopt the Netherlands' approach to this issue. It's time to look at secular countries and realize their way of doing things regarding this issue is better. Hell, my own country should and we're their next door neighbour.

thaluikhain:

Colt47:
In fact, it will probably impact are lives much more than anything resulting from the gay marriage stuff.

Assuming you aren't a gay person wanting to get married.

It's still an issue, I just happen to have a little paranoia meter that is telling me the timing is rather convenient. I'm kind of finding that the US political agenda for most issues in the nation is to use what they consider a slightly less impacting issue to push off solving other issues. Personally, I'm hoping that when my generation reaches the stage where we can impact the political scene through more than just voting things will start improving across the board. Gay marriage should never have been an issue to begin with: forbidding it is no different than disallowing Non-Jeudo-Christian marriages. (To clarify, I think anyone should be able to marry regardless of orientation or partner. Even if we might find the union questionable.)

Skeleon:

JimB:

Eshay Adlay:
Also marriage doesn't just exist in the United States.

Given that I cannot reasonably expect to affect marriage laws in a nation I do not live in or have citizenship in, I cannot bring myself to care overmuch about those other nations' stances on gay marriage.

No, he's got a point there, even if it's not the one he wanted to make. It's time for the USA to look beyond its borders and adopt the Netherlands' approach to this issue. It's time to look at secular countries and realize their way of doing things regarding this issue is better. Hell, my own country should and we're their next door neighbor.

As a native English speaker, I come from a long tradition of stealing from other cultures and appropriating what's useful to mine. I have no problem with learning from what others have to offer. But as you say, that wasn't his meaning, and I have nothing but disdain for his argument that if Iran demands marriage be a religious ceremony, then I have no standing to say the word "marriage" has a secular meaning in both law and in the English language.

ten.to.ten:

Eshay Adlay:
That's a civil union.

No, it's a marriage. The term "civil union" didn't even exist until 2000 when the Vermont state legislature first used the term to describe their form of registered domestic partnership for gay couples.

There is legally no difference between a marriage solmenised in a church and a marriage solemnised in a courthouse and they both share the name "marriage".

I am a married atheist. We got married by a judge because we wanted to legally legitimize our relationship in the eyes of the law. Not some god. For us, and the law, and our life insurance. Trust me if there is a god that allows such horriffic atrocities in the world, I doubt he cares if you are slamming a girl or guy without a wedding ring on.

OT- There is no real legitimate reason for anyone to deny gays being married. I honestly would like to see the day where more than two people can marry each other. Though the legal and tax implications will most likely make that impossible.

Eshay Adlay:
[quote="NemotheElvenPanda" post="528.402760.16636114"]

I don't see why they would want to. People don't seem to realise that marriage is a "form" of marriage celebration. A religious one.

No, Judeo-Christian marriage is. Marriage is a concept that seems to predate recorded history, and not all of it is going to be religious. Marriage is not something unique to Christianity, nor any specific culture, its just convergent evolution of ideals.

Eshay Adlay:
snip

There's a difference between what you want and what currently exists. Just because in your mind "marriage" is a religious ceremony between a man, a woman and their church doesn't make it the reality.

Aris Khandr:
snip

How hard is it for you to understand what the difference between now and the future is? It is currently vague and it needs a less broad definition? And your point about your parents? That is just showing how flawed the current system is. And the moderators can't get me. I can and will return more powerful then ever.

Rastelin:
snip

Alrighty then mate, let me explain to you what was wrong with your "comparison". Your comparison is flawed because:
1. I could replace the anti-homosexual image with an anti-paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality etc. and it would have the exact same message. If you truly support free love then you would have to support those.
2. I could replace the anti-race mixing image with the same things, anti-paedophilia, necrophilia, ect. Your reverse slippery slope argument always has and always will be flawed.

ten.to.ten:
snip

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am trying to achieve. I want marriage to be less of a broad definition that you describe, and to have a more precise, meaningful existence.

JimB:
snip

See above.

Eshay Adlay:

I could replace the anti-homosexual image with an anti-paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality etc. and it would have the exact same message.

No you couldn't.

There is a clear difference between a consenting adult, and a minor unable to give consent. This is also true when attempting to compare said adult to a corpse or animal.

Are you honestly saying you see no difference between interracial couples/same sex couples and paedophiles?

Eshay Adlay:

I want marriage to be less of a broad definition that you describe, and to have a more precise, meaningful existence.

Why?

You started off talking about tradition and sanctity, both of which have no relevance. But if you want to change what marriage is, then what's your motive? Why do you want to do that, and why would that be a good thing to exclude others? Is marriages only worth in its discrimination against gays?

Eshay Adlay:
And the moderators can't get me. I can and will return more powerful then ever.

Better people than you have tried and failed.

Knight Templar:

Eshay Adlay:
And the moderators can't get me. I can and will return more powerful then ever.

Better people than you have tried and failed.

Yeah, that only works against lightsabres, not banhammers.

xDarc:
Issues like gay marriage, and other populist bullet points, have done exactly that... they have harmed "the quest for job growth," when they become a candidate packaged item to buy Barrack Obama, a most deserving one-term president if I ever saw one, another 4 years in the white house to do nothing.

This is the exact same discussion we had earlier and little has changed in my view.
What were the alternatives? Romney? The guy who wanted to increase wasteful defense spending and cut government income even more? The guy who would've destroyed the economy, just faster?

That's where this part of my post you quoted comes in:
"Not to mention that the politicians who are the most ardent against gay marriage suck at fiscal responsibility and economics, anyway, so it's not like there's any need to hold your nose and support them despite one's pro-views on gay marriage."

If there actually were any sense in voting against homosexuals' interests, you might have an argument, but there isn't. Obama's economic policy sucks, he's bought by special interests and coddling Wall Street just the same, but it at least doesn't suck as badly as Romneys, so consider his somewhat socially progressive views a bonus to that.

To make it quite clear: You seem to think it's obvious and common knowledge that people who are interested in economic recovery would've voted against Obama and only those other aspects were reasons for voting for him. It's far from that. The reason I personally dislike the Republicans so much is because I think they suck on both fronts, socially and economically. There's nothing there to vote for, whether you care about homosexuals' issues or not.

...running a massive social media campaign painting republicans as fanatical servants of the rich and religious right.

No, no, no, the Republicans helped him considerably in that. I dunno whether it was stupidity or whether they thought those Socially Conservative comments would garner them needed votes, but they thoroughly sabotaged themselves.
Obama's campaign just picked up on it and repeated their own words back to them.
And yes, those intrusive Republicans' comments damaged Romney badly. Not to mention that a number of ultra-right laws have been installed (for instance essentially leveraging out Roe v Wade with ridiculous rules regarding abortion clinics that have the stated goal of removing it), so the "it was never going to happen anyway"-part really doesn't fly.
Not to mention - further - that Romney himself stepped in it countless times during his campaign.

Hjalmar Fryklund:
I don't know if there is a specific term for it, but I'd say that kind of argument is guilty of two fallacies: The Red Herring fallacy and the Black-or-White fallacy. It's a Red Herring because of either one (or both) of two following reasons, depending on which context the argument takes place:
[...]
Also, it's a Black-or-White fallacy because the disjunctive (the "either/or" premise) is based upon that red herring.

Makes sense, thanks, so I have an idea what to call it at least. It's probably not its "official name" if there is one, but close enough (and it covers both aspects rather well).

Skeleon:

To make it quite clear: You seem to think it's obvious and common knowledge that people who are interested in economic recovery would've voted against Obama and only those other aspects were reasons for voting for him. It's far from that.

No, it's quite clear. Obama hasn't accomplished jack shit on the economic front; I don't count propping up the stock market with free fed make-believe money as a recovery- do you? An absolutely worthless, miserable 4 years. Especially for working class adults trying to stay afloat or get ahead. I'm tired of this shit. I would have voted for literally anyone just on the basis that they couldn't do any worse than Barrack Obama.

Barrack Obama is not a leader. No one could be worse than him. He can not bargain or negotiate to save his life. All he does is convince people who to blame at every opportunity. There's opportunities a plenty with today's state-puppet media. The first lady was at the Oscars for fucks sake. Barrack Obama won't stop sending me fucking campaign emails, my spam box is full of them. He's never leading, just campaigning to make everyone hate the opposition and it's fucking disgusting behavior for a president.

ANYONE would have been an improvement, because there is no change with Barrack Obama, or did no one else remember the past 4 years? This should be common sense stuff, but nope- it's just a social media circle jerk out there where people can pat themselves on the back for winning a pyrrhic victory against an imaginary evil empire.

xDarc:
ANYONE would have been an improvement,...

No, not anyone. A ton of people are extremely disappointed with Obama, but the solution is not to go to the guy who would do W. Bush's (and the entire trickle down ideology's) nonsense all over again, only even worse, that got not only the USA but the global economy into trouble. In a system with only two choices, the awful one is still better than the incredibly bad one. Obama wins by default, which is shockingly depressing, especially considering his civil liberties infractions.

---

As for pyrrhic victories? I've told you before that people have different priorities. Stop applying yours to everybody else. Not everybody cares as much about a possible minor economic upturn as they do about basic personal rights. Know why? Because the former, the thing that you put so much emphasis on because you feel it affects you so much, affects them not as much as those other issues.

It's really simple: If the Republicans got their act together and just stopped being the stupid party (as Jindall said it) and stopped trying to oppress people for Socially Conservative nonsense, maybe then these people's priorities would also change. This support for the Democrats? It's largely self-inflicted by the Republicans.

You know, you complain a whole lot about politicians, voters and interest groups pushing for change towards progressive values rather than focussing on the economy, but I've yet to hear you complain about the socially regressive pushes that Social Conservatives keep doing which causes a whole lot of distraction. They waste a hell of a lot of time on oppressive idiocies because it's either their or their voters' priority to do so. Get the Republicans to stop wasting time and energy on this crap and people won't have to prioritize it as much. Get them to stop and maybe - these essential issues satisfied - people can focus more on the economics that they are not as strongly and immediately affected by.

Eshay Adlay:
I could replace the anti-homosexual image with an anti-pedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality etc. and it would have the exact same message. If you truly support free love then you would have to support those.

You do not get to dictate moral priorities to anyone but yourself, particularly when your sense of right and wrong is so skewed that you compare a loving relationship between consenting adults to relationships of abuse between an adult and someone who cannot provide informed consent.

Eshay Adlay:
I could replace the anti-race mixing image with the same things, anti-pedophilia, necrophilia, etc.

You could. That would not make it relevant, but nothing is stopping you from posting the image, I suppose.

Eshay Adlay:
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what I am trying to achieve. I want marriage to be less of a broad definition that you describe, and to have a more precise, meaningful existence.

No, I don't. I know exactly what you want to do: You want to define a word such that it excludes people from using it despite having exactly the same claim to it that you do, and you want to accomplish this for apparently no reason other than a hatred of the people you want to exclude, since you have not even tried to demonstrate how anyone's life is improved by your proposed measure.

There is nothing to be gained really, and in a lot of ways it hurts us politically. We know this. However, you shouldn't have to "gain" something for stand up for what you believe is right and sticking to your principles. Of course, there are some people who probably only go along with it because their party does, which is not principled at all, just blind loyalty, and when conservatives start making the shift to supporting gay marraige when they need the political clout, some of those people will probably follow as well.

Some people are just unwilling to change. The Republicans are a prime example... There's so much ignorance in the party that it's borderline depressing to consider they are actually in contention for the presidency.

Eshay Adlay:
Alrighty then mate, let me explain to you what was wrong with your "comparison". Your comparison is flawed because:
1. I could replace the anti-homosexual image with an anti-paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality etc. and it would have the exact same message. If you truly support free love then you would have to support those.

You think pedophilia, necrophilia and bestiality has anything to do with love? Are you serious?

Its time I posted in my own thread again. What I want to say is that I don't believe that so many republican higher ups (the ones pulling the strings of the party) actually care about the morality of gay marriage, I suspect that something else is at play. WHY? has gay marriage become such a huge issue that they have bothered to mobilized the entire party around it?

1-What is really at stake? What are they really trying to achieve?

2-WHY WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY other issues and laws in leviticus why do they cling to gay marriage so hard? (YES I've heard the argument this law was included because they were trying to build a nation for israelites as quickly as possible and same sex relations didn't lead to procreation) But why has this survived for so long? especially into nations that really have no need for mass procreating? There has to be another reason that its such a priority for them otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

Eshay Adlay:

Rastelin:
snip

Who are you to judge if you are such an ardent supporter of free love? Such hypocrisy! Such bigotry! Such hatred!

JimB:
snip

1. I was pointing out how flawed your image was. It was a prime example of how pants on head retarded some people are when it comes to a slippery slope falicy (whether or not it is a falicy or fact remains to be seen)
2. The only reason I haven't posted the image is because I cannot find it. Hence why I had to try and explain it.
3. It would improve peoples lives by finally having a solution to this big question. It would shut up both sides of the debate. Imagine you are a primary school teacher. Some autistic annoying kid wants to play with a group of kids. The problem is that this group of kids hates the annoying kid. You have a few options. Do you:
A: Force the group to accept the annoying one, angering everyone in the group
B: Do nothing. Preserve the status-quo. The free market will fix it.
C: Make the kid play with another, more tolerant group.
I'm sure you know what the answer is.

thaluikhain:
snip

That is of course, implying I don't know how to get past an IP ban. Which I do.

Knight Templar:
snip

You have just made a rookie mistake m8. You just told me where you draw the line morally. Who are you to say that your line is the right line? How are you any more different then I am, apart from being on a different part of the spectrum? You claim to be an expert on morality, and that your opinion is infallible. You claim that something is wrong so it must be banned. How are you and I any different?
You want to know what my motive is, my motive is to help people. I want to find a solution to this problem that will harm the least amount of people. Sometimes, segregation is a necessary evil to ensure security, safety and calm.

hypocrisy ? Go right now and read the Book of Leviticus which started this whole thing. See how many so called abominations you've committed, eating shell fish, wearing cloths made of different fabrics handling parts of a dead pig (football) then you will realize that you've been lied to and brain washed by the church.

Friendly Lich:
snip

Might want to tone that down, the mods are a bit touchy about that sort of thing.

thaluikhain:

Friendly Lich:
snip

Might want to tone that down, the mods are a bit touchy about that sort of thing.

Sorry he hit a raw spot. I'm done now : )

Friendly Lich:

thaluikhain:

Friendly Lich:
snip

Might want to tone that down, the mods are a bit touchy about that sort of thing.

Sorry he hit a raw spot. I'm done now : )

One suspects that might have been the point, but you might want to edit that anyway.

Friendly Lich:
Its time I posted in my own thread again. What I want to say is that I don't believe that so many republican higher ups (the ones pulling the strings of the party) actually care about the morality of gay marriage, I suspect that something else is at play. WHY? has gay marriage become such a huge issue that they have bothered to mobilized the entire party around it?

1-What is really at stake? What are they really trying to achieve?

2-WHY WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY other issues and laws in leviticus why do they cling to gay marriage so hard? (YES I've heard the argument this law was included because they were trying to build a nation for israelites as quickly as possible and same sex relations didn't lead to procreation) But why has this survived for so long? especially into nations that really have no need for mass procreating? There has to be another reason that its such a priority for them otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

1 - They're trying to win a culture war. There are two Americas, there's the beacon of liberty, democracy and civil rights, the "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" America, and then there's the America that was founded as an evangelical Christian theocracy in 1950 by Ronald Reagan. Their version of America is rapidly disintegrating and the legitimising of the relationships of a group of people who they think are on the same level as child rapists and who only exist as an affront to their entire religion is going to be the sledgehammer that breaks the camel's back.

2 - Marriage is seen as a sort of cultural bellwether. When the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning whites from marrying blacks were unconstitutional it was a loud and clear message to the country that the era of segregation was over and that it was no longer culturally acceptable to stop whites and blacks from forming families together. When marriage went through several reforms to eliminate coverture and to make rape within marriage a crime it sent a message that women are to no longer be seen as inferior to men.

We're now getting to the point where legislatures and courts are starting to send a message to the country that gay relationships have the same worth as straight relationships. Within the next 10-20 years the Christian conservatives are going to be told, decisively, that they are wrong, and that their opinions on gays are invalid. The world is going to leave them behind and it terrifies them.

ten.to.ten:

Friendly Lich:
Its time I posted in my own thread again. What I want to say is that I don't believe that so many republican higher ups (the ones pulling the strings of the party) actually care about the morality of gay marriage, I suspect that something else is at play. WHY? has gay marriage become such a huge issue that they have bothered to mobilized the entire party around it?

1-What is really at stake? What are they really trying to achieve?

2-WHY WHEN THERE ARE SO MANY other issues and laws in leviticus why do they cling to gay marriage so hard? (YES I've heard the argument this law was included because they were trying to build a nation for israelites as quickly as possible and same sex relations didn't lead to procreation) But why has this survived for so long? especially into nations that really have no need for mass procreating? There has to be another reason that its such a priority for them otherwise it doesn't make any sense.

1 - They're trying to win a culture war. There are two Americas, there's the beacon of liberty, democracy and civil rights, the "give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" America, and then there's the America that was founded as an evangelical Christian theocracy in 1950 by Ronald Reagan. Their version of America is rapidly disintegrating and the legitimising of the relationships of a group of people who they think are on the same level as child rapists and who only exist as an affront to their entire religion is going to be the sledgehammer that breaks the camel's back.

2 - Marriage is seen as a sort of cultural bellwether. When the Supreme Court ruled that laws banning whites from marrying blacks were unconstitutional it was a loud and clear message to the country that the era of segregation was over and that it was no longer culturally acceptable to stop whites and blacks from forming families together. When marriage went through several reforms to eliminate coverture and to make rape within marriage a crime it sent a message that women are to no longer be seen as inferior to men.

We're now getting to the point where legislatures and courts are starting to send a message to the country that gay relationships have the same worth as straight relationships. Within the next 10-20 years the Christian conservatives are going to be told, decisively, that they are wrong, and that their opinions on gays are invalid. The world is going to leave them behind and it terrifies them.

I hope you're right.

Eshay Adlay:

Rastelin:
snip [I have no idea what, but I suppose it was probably about how necrophilia is equivalent to homosexuality]

Who are you to judge if you are such an ardent supporter of free love? Such hypocrisy! Such bigotry! Such hatred!

Stop. Just stop. You're not doing yourself or your position any favors; you're telling him that if he supports romantic relationships between consenting adults, then he's required to support sexual relationships between an adult and a creature (or former creature) incapable of providing consent. It's beyond contemptible, and ends up being just sort of sad.

Eshay Adlay:
I was pointing out how flawed your image was.

What image? I didn't post any image. Are you even talking to me?

Eshay Adlay:
The only reason I haven't posted the image is because I cannot find it.

I don't care.

Eshay Adlay:
It would improve people's lives by finally having a solution to this big question. It would shut up both sides of the debate.

Yes, and American lives would be improved by the president declaring that he has full legal right to declare any citizen at any time an illegal combatant and order remote missile strikes on that person and his surrounding environs, because hey, hundreds of people would die in fires, but at least the question would be solved.

Jesus Christ, dude.

Eshay Adlay:
Imagine you are a primary school teacher. Some autistic annoying kid wants to play with a group of kids. The problem is that this group of kids hates the annoying kid. You have a few options. Do you:

A: Force the group to accept the annoying one, angering everyone in the group
B: Do nothing. Preserve the status quo. The free market will fix it.
C: Make the kid play with another, more tolerant group.

I'm sure you know what the answer is.

Two things, Eshay Adlay.

Second, your metaphor fails on its face, because nothing about permitting gay marriages requires homophobic people to interact with the married couples.

First, though, you are advocating that a preferable alternative to America's legal system treating all of its citizens equally is that minorities emigrate. At this point, I honestly don't even believe you mean any of the things you say. I have to figure you're just saying the dumbest, most morally indefensible, most hateful things you can conceive of just to see how angry you can make people.

JimB:
First, though, you are advocating that a preferable alternative to America's legal system treating all of its citizens equally is that minorities emigrate. At this point, I honestly don't even believe you mean any of the things you say.

I daresay that any number of people believe that, even if they might not admit it so openly.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked