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

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4
 

Eshay Adlay:
You just told me where you draw the line morally

Actually no I didn't.

For all you know I am 100% ok with having sex with corpses, children and animals. I'm not, but that is entirely beside the point: These things are different in meaningful ways from consensual relationships between adults, but there's no meaningful difference between the opposition to same sex marriage, interracial marriage.

Who are you to say that your line is the right line?

Assuming you mean allowing same sex people to marry?
This line improves the equality and freedom of people without any noteworthy harm, risks, or other complications. In fact it reduces harm to remove such unnecessary and unfounded discrimination. Do I need to explain why harm is bad?
You don't have a valid reason for why you support your line, never-mind why anybody else should.

You claim to be an expert on morality, and that your opinion is infallible.

No I don't.

You claim that something is wrong so it must be banned.

No I didn't.

How are you and I any different?

I don't sound like a bigot?

Ahah, forgive my jest, I couldn't resist such low hanging fruit.

You want to know what my motive is, my motive is to help people.

How is what you want helping anyone?

Sometimes, segregation is a necessary evil to ensure security, safety and calm.

Assuming that is even true, how is discriminating against gays necessary for those things?

HE HIT THE TRIFECTA!!!!

First time in over two years I've seen someone get a triple warning on an R&P thread. That takes talent. Oddly, saw it happen to the Mass Effect debate and Troll Legend Zeel.

I was going to respond to him... but I'm finding it hard to find posts I can actually quote...

Eshay Adlay:

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.

Found one.

Alrighty bro, so you are under the belief that homosexuality = pedophilia = necrophilia correct?

Luckily, my side wants a precise, meaningful existence to marriage too:

Marriage should be between two consenting adults. Simple. Seven words. No one is forcing the church, they can enjoy their beliefs all they want. The contract would not be between them and the Christian God. They would be between them and the ones that make the laws in this country: The Government.

Simple.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Found one.

Alrighty bro, so you are under the belief that homosexuality = pedophilia = necrophilia correct?

Luckily, my side wants a precise, meaningful existence to marriage too:

Marriage should be between two consenting adults. Simple. Seven words. No one is forcing the church, they can enjoy their beliefs all they want. The contract would not be between them and the Christian God. They would be between them and the ones that make the laws in this country: The Government.

Simple.

If you can change the definition of marriage to suit your needs, why can't they? It's discrimination because you claim they have no rights on the basis that you disagree with their beliefs, analogous to how homosexuals are being treated now.

Kopikatsu:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Found one.

Alrighty bro, so you are under the belief that homosexuality = pedophilia = necrophilia correct?

Luckily, my side wants a precise, meaningful existence to marriage too:

Marriage should be between two consenting adults. Simple. Seven words. No one is forcing the church, they can enjoy their beliefs all they want. The contract would not be between them and the Christian God. They would be between them and the ones that make the laws in this country: The Government.

Simple.

If you can change the definition of marriage to suit your needs, why can't they? It's discrimination because you claim they have no rights on the basis that you disagree with their beliefs, analogous to how homosexuals are being treated now.

Are you sure you quoted the right person?

If you did: Because "marriage" is far older than any religion, no religion should hold dominion over it. Since the banning of gay marriage is almost entirely due to religious persecution, they should be eliminated from the factor altogether since Biblical Law does not equal US Law.

Kopikatsu:
If you can change the definition of marriage to suit your needs, why can't they? It's discrimination because you claim they have no rights on the basis that you disagree with their beliefs, analogous to how homosexuals are being treated now.

Gay people aren't harming anyone, are able to give consent, and are legally allowed to live together as married couples without being married. This is not true of, say, child molestors and children.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Are you sure you quoted the right person?

I'm sure. See below.

thaluikhain:

Kopikatsu:
If you can change the definition of marriage to suit your needs, why can't they? It's discrimination because you claim they have no rights on the basis that you disagree with their beliefs, analogous to how homosexuals are being treated now.

Gay people aren't harming anyone, are able to give consent, and are legally allowed to live together as married couples without being married. This is not true of, say, child molestors and children.

Arbitrary distinction. Why can a child not give consent? Children as young as twelve have been married off (and bore children) since only a few centuries ago, and it has been a common practice throughout history. We even have different countries today with wildly varying ages of consent. The age of consent in Mexico City is 12, Spain is 13, and the UK has it at 16.

Pedophilia laws are incredibly arbitrary and inconsistent. In the US, age of consent varies from 16-18. What's the difference between someone who is 17 9/10ths years old and someone who is 18? Do they suddenly get hit with a wave of maturity once they hit their birthday? Are you okay with minors having sex with each other? If so, what's the difference between 17/17 and 17/19? or 22? or 30?

Kopikatsu:
Arbitrary distinction. Why can a child not give consent? Children as young as twelve have been married off (and bore children) since only a few centuries ago, and it has been a common practice throughout history. We even have different countries today with wildly varying ages of consent. The age of consent in Mexico City is 12, Spain is 13, and the UK has it at 16.

Pedophilia laws are incredibly arbitrary and inconsistent. In the US, age of consent varies from 16-18. What's the difference between someone who is 17 9/10ths years old and someone who is 18? Do they suddenly get hit with a wave of maturity once they hit their birthday? Are you okay with minors having sex with each other? If so, what's the difference between 17/17 and 17/19? or 22? or 30?

Given an age line drawn at an arbitrary point, a distinction is made between children and adults.

Yes, this line might be drawn elsewhere, but that's no reason to deny gay marriage regardless of where the line is.

Whomever you deem to be unable of giving consent should not be able to marry, and whoever you deem to be able should. Adults are deemed capable of giving consent, and so should be able to marry.

If you're taking the ability to consent from adults, then banning gay marriage follows naturally (also, banning straight marriage of course). Otherwise, it does not.

Kopikatsu:

NameIsRobertPaulson:

Are you sure you quoted the right person?

I'm sure. See below.

thaluikhain:

Kopikatsu:
If you can change the definition of marriage to suit your needs, why can't they? It's discrimination because you claim they have no rights on the basis that you disagree with their beliefs, analogous to how homosexuals are being treated now.

Gay people aren't harming anyone, are able to give consent, and are legally allowed to live together as married couples without being married. This is not true of, say, child molestors and children.

Arbitrary distinction. Why can a child not give consent? Children as young as twelve have been married off (and bore children) since only a few centuries ago, and it has been a common practice throughout history. We even have different countries today with wildly varying ages of consent. The age of consent in Mexico City is 12, Spain is 13, and the UK has it at 16.

Pedophilia laws are incredibly arbitrary and inconsistent. In the US, age of consent varies from 16-18. What's the difference between someone who is 17 9/10ths years old and someone who is 18? Do they suddenly get hit with a wave of maturity once they hit their birthday? Are you okay with minors having sex with each other? If so, what's the difference between 17/17 and 17/19? or 22? or 30?

As far as I know (And this is gray area for me since my friend got in trouble for having a 15-year old freshman girlfriend when he was an 18-year old senior), ages younger than 16 greatly increase the chances of birth defects and fatalities during pregnancy and childbirth for both the mother and the fetus. Same reason family members can't get married. 17 starts being a very fuzzy line though.

JimB:
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.

Not just that. Eshay Adlay also think I should support pedophilia which is rape and necrophilia as well if I support romantic relationships between consenting adults. Or I am according to him full of hypocrisy, bigotry and hatred.

There are times you just have to bow to the absurd. I am giving up on this guy.

Kopikatsu:
If you can change the definition of marriage to suit your needs, why can't they?

NameIsRobertPaulson isn't changing anything. He's proposing that the government do so. The reason he has standing to do so and "they" don't (assuming I know who "they" are; names are usually better than pronouns) is that marriage is a legal contract and the government has the right and duty to change it, whereas no religion in the United States has the right or authority to dictate what American legal policy must be.

Kopikatsu:
It's discrimination because you claim they have no rights on the basis that you disagree with their beliefs, analogous to how homosexuals are being treated now.

"No rights?" Are you kidding me with this crap? Please point out to me any line where NameIsRobertPaulson said anyone's number of rights should be reduced.

Because conservatives cherry pick parts of the bible while saying that they follow the bible completely.

As an example, turn the other cheek? No, boot up your ass mentality.

A camel can more easily fit through the eye of a needle then a rich man can get into the kingdom of heaven. Tax breaks and fuck safety nets.

Worship god daily, Yes we're going to have prayer in schools and manger scenes every where!!!

History of evolution and the world, god did it.

Gay marriage, jesus says them gays are bad.

I'm pretty sure I could go on for awhile.

dmase:
Because conservatives cherry pick parts of the bible while saying that they follow the bible completely.

As an example, turn the other cheek? No, boot up your ass mentality.

A camel can more easily fit through the eye of a needle then a rich man can get into the kingdom of heaven. Tax breaks and fuck safety nets.

Worship god daily, Yes we're going to have prayer in schools and manger scenes every where!!!

History of evolution and the world, god did it.

Gay marriage, jesus says them gays are bad.

I'm pretty sure I could go on for awhile.

I've only heard the most extremist christians spout any one of those.

In fact, there was a republican law maker who out and out said that according to his religion, gay people should not marry. And he then went on to say that it didn't matter what his religion said because he was an elected official of a secular nation, and it was his and several other christian votes that allowed gay marriage in New York state.

You're not wrong that some do say this stuff, but please stop painting an entire ~40% of the country as believing this monolithic thing when it just doesn't exist.

Bentusi16:

dmase:
Because conservatives cherry pick parts of the bible while saying that they follow the bible completely.

As an example, turn the other cheek? No, boot up your ass mentality.

A camel can more easily fit through the eye of a needle then a rich man can get into the kingdom of heaven. Tax breaks and fuck safety nets.

Worship god daily, Yes we're going to have prayer in schools and manger scenes every where!!!

History of evolution and the world, god did it.

Gay marriage, jesus says them gays are bad.

I'm pretty sure I could go on for awhile.

I've only heard the most extremist christians spout any one of those.

In fact, there was a republican law maker who out and out said that according to his religion, gay people should not marry. And he then went on to say that it didn't matter what his religion said because he was an elected official of a secular nation, and it was his and several other christian votes that allowed gay marriage in New York state.

You're not wrong that some do say this stuff, but please stop painting an entire ~40% of the country as believing this monolithic thing when it just doesn't exist.

Republicans support prayer in school, are against gay marriage, against evolution, and several say the earth is only what 10,000 years old I believe is what the bible mentions.

These are facts, all based on biblical references, not on some random ass conservative agenda. I mean think why the hell would a republican completely disagree with evolution unless religion told them so, they can say the evidence doesn't add up but it boils down to god made me in his image.

And if you want to go mainstream look at the vice president candidate for 2008 look at the presidential hopefuls for 2012. They base a large part of their beliefs on the bible.

And yeah, I'm pretty damn confident that republicans do base most of their opinions on the bible.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/01/gallup-poll-americans-creationism-evolution_n_1563800.html

Obviously they completely skip over the parts about giving and what not. Now I know 100% of republicans or even conservatives don't throw the bible up as their one resource for these topics but I don't need to prove 100% of republicans or conservatives do base their opinions on the bible. 51% is enough to show a causal link. Teaching creationism in school, denying gay marriage rights, the war on christmas... this is not something someone thinking in a secular way would propose.

This too boggles me, as the few people I know who openly say they are against gays rights to marriage/cu's, are the same people I know who are crazy loon paranoid about something or someone taking away their own rights and freedoms. And as I said to that friend whom I have known since we were 8 and 9 years old I hoped she didn't expect anyone to jump to her defense if said rights were ever threatened in future. She was pretty pissed.

And I wish people would leave God out of it for a moment. I love God, I love Jesus. Still don't want my rights (including the one to say that publicly and freely) trampled on. Leave the Word out of it for a moment. If people campaigned as hard to take the Word of God away from me as the campaign against gay marriage I would have risen up a long time ago. And no hippie peaceful protest bullshit either.

michiehoward:
This too boggles me, as the few people I know who openly say they are against gays rights to marriage/civil unions are the same people I know who are crazy loon paranoid about something or someone taking away their own rights and freedoms.

No one fears theft like a thief. Or, as the Bard put it, "I am that I am, and they that level at my abuses reckon up their own."

JimB:

michiehoward:
This too boggles me, as the few people I know who openly say they are against gays rights to marriage/civil unions are the same people I know who are crazy loon paranoid about something or someone taking away their own rights and freedoms.

No one fears theft like a thief. Or, as the Bard put it, "I am that I am, and they that level at my abuses reckon up their own."

Is that the "shit on everyone before they shit on me" policy? ;)

Not exactly. The point is that most people are stupid and self-obsessed enough to think that everyone else is the same as them; so people who are afraid of having their rights taken away are, more likely than not, the kind of people who want to take others' rights away.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked