Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

mrducky · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:42 pm

Quote:

You want my support for gay marriage? Then fight for the rights of polygamists, ghost-marriages, animal marriages etc.

are you for civil partnerships then?

can you have a civil partnership with an animal?

or are you outright opposed to homosexuals being protected by the law?

i still think that this is a matter of society.
http://atheism.about.com/b/2004/07/27/h ... dustry.htm

Quote:

Steven Fisher, a spokesman for the Human Rights Campaign ... estimated that groups opposing the amendment are financially outgunned by its proponents by a 5 to 1 ratio. According to the Human Rights Campaign's calculations, the nation's major gay rights groups had a combined budget of $51.4 million in 2003, while Christian groups such as Focus on the Family, the Family Research Council and Concerned Women for America reported spending $247 million.

when an organisation needs to spend 51.4 million to secure their rights or a christian group is willing to spend a quarter of a billion dollars opposing and restricting their rights when there are millions of starving in the world then quite frankly, America is not ready for gay marriage.

Sexybeast42 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2009 10:46 pm

Proud Christian, Proud Consevative, and Proud to stand for Gay-Marriage. :mrgreen:

mrducky · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:36 pm

apollo wrote:

Proud Christian, Proud Consevative, and Proud to stand for Gay-Marriage. :mrgreen:

always surprising me

http://www.cwfa.org/articledisplay.asp? ... ategoryid=
http://www.frc.org/human-sexuality#homosexuality
http://www.frc.org/content/q--a-whats-w ... ime-laws--

sif you play on orwell.

im surprised they know how to read.

anyways, if i were generalizing, you are the last person to be for gay marriage XD

Sexybeast42 · **Posted:** Fri Jul 24, 2009 11:44 pm

Of course it would seem that way, but what right do i have to say " Ohh, you can not be happy. So do not marry the person you love"

Makes no sence to me

mrducky · **Posted:** Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:22 am

apollo wrote:

Of course it would seem that way, but what right do i have to say " Ohh, you can not be happy. So do not marry the person you love"

Makes no sence to me

Quote:

If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; it is an abomination.

both are from levictus

makes no sense to me :/

i love my picture collection :/ sad that 75% is too rude/vulgar for this forum... already used this one :3

if 2 wrongs dont make a right, if you tick enough off YOU MIGHT JUST WIN!
im a bit saddened they didnt know that lesbians are homosexuals but meh...

Steven · **Posted:** Sat Jul 25, 2009 4:59 am

Quote:

There is nothing "slippery slope" about my arguments.

I am not saying "Oh no, this might happen is such and such happens, therefore we can't allow it to happen."

What I am arguing is that the people who want "marriage equality" are a bunch of hypocritical polygamphobes. What I am saying, is that I want anybody and everybody's new usage of the word "marriage" to be allowed and legalized and recognized. Just because you don't know many people who use the word in the ways I described, doesn't give you a right to declare that such things are not allowed. After all, who are you to tell other people how they define their contracts and relationships? (A person can write a contract to themselves by the way. It's commonly called a personal oath or vow)

Alright, I'll give you that there is some distinction, albeit a small one, between the two points.

Btw, Marriage NEVER meant "a union between a man and a woman of the same race." That might have been the law, but that was never the meaning of the institution. Just as "Polygamy" is the marriage between 1 man and multiple women EVEN THOUGH it's not legal in most places. Just because it isn't legal, doesn't mean it's not marriage.

Quote:

Why should each group of people who have unique and self-important meanings of marriage have to fight the same 20 year legal battle all over again? Just because Blacks were fighting for civil rights, didn't mean that latinos and Asians had to redo the fights over again for themselves also.

Why are they made to? Because people oppose it.

Quote:

You want my support for gay marriage? Then fight for the rights of polygamists, ghost-marriages, animal marriages etc.

As i've said, I have no problem with polygamy. However the problem lies with "ghost" and "animal" marriages - neither are beings bound by the laws of the land, and neither can be held to a consenting contract...

...not to mention they'd probably have problems signing their name.

msomeoneelsez · **Joined:** Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm **Posts:** 126

Not to bring up an old point...

But why does Government have to legislate marriage??

Honestly, the excuse that it is part of society, and government is there for society (or whatever it was...) is lame and quite stupid if you ask me. Not stupid in the sense that you're an idiot for thinking/saying it, but stupid in the sense that it gives reason for governments to do... well... anything really.

Isn't anything that anyone does technically a part of society?

I just don't see why people aren't allowed to figure these things out on their own! That was the beautiful thing about the US Constitution before the US government began ignoring it in the 30's!

I think it is just absurd... and yet everyone still squabbles over what else we can limit or regulate instead of what should be limited or regulated in the first place.

The Republicans and the Democrats agree on 95% (or more) of issues, but its the last 5% that they make 98% of the political news into. The only change that the US will be seeing is a side to side pendulum that has a net movement of backwards (or downwards, whichever you like.)

Why not change back to the ways that allowed people the freedom to choose between what they believe to be right and wrong? Why not allow the People to choose between gay marriage and not.

The only reason that I can see for not doing those is that everyone has a desire for their way to be placed unto their little world. Everyone wants some form of control over others, control to make said others not do anything wrong by the controller's opinions. That is all that legislation is... control.

Control breeds problems. That is one of the reasons why the Chinese economy boomed once Capitalism was allowed. Capitalism is a lack of control.

And hell, for all of you environmentalists... Guess what nature is! A lack of control. What do humans do to environments? Control them.

Now I am not advocating Anarchy, I am just advocating minimal control... to keep people from killing each other... to keep people from harming each other... etc.

In fact, I outlined my 3 rules for that already.

1: The actions of one person drastically harms another person, i.e. child abuse, assisted suicide.
2: The actions of one person causes financial harm to another person or entity, i.e. stealing, embezzling.
3: Any other thing that can actually harm someone or something else.

It truly is as simple as that.

mrducky · **Posted:** Mon Jul 27, 2009 4:18 am

msomeoneelsez wrote:

Why not change back to the ways that allowed people the freedom to choose between what they believe to be right and wrong? Why not allow the People to choose between gay marriage and not.

because, if the people choose against gay marriage then obviously the gays will be discriminated against for being a minority.

The only reason that I can see for not doing those is that everyone has a desire for their way to be placed unto their little world. Everyone wants some form of control over others, control to make said others not do anything wrong by the controller's opinions. That is all that legislation is... control.

and who gets these "controllers" into power? the people.

Control breeds problems. That is one of the reasons why the Chinese economy boomed once Capitalism was allowed. Capitalism is a lack of control.

lol, to say China has lack of control is plain stupid. the government has its hands in EVERY major corporation and industry. they might have a free marketish system, but the government points the funds and still makes the decisions.

And hell, for all of you environmentalists... Guess what nature is! A lack of control. What do humans do to environments? Control them.

so making farmland is bad? prefer to starve?

Now I am not advocating Anarchy, I am just advocating minimal control... to keep people from killing each other... to keep people from harming each other... etc.

at what point does control become minimal control? what point minimal control becomes anarchy?

In fact, I outlined my 3 rules for that already.

1: The actions of one person drastically harms another person, i.e. child abuse, assisted suicide.
2: The actions of one person causes financial harm to another person or entity, i.e. stealing, embezzling.
3: Any other thing that can actually harm someone or something else.

you seem to have ignored the "laws". your 3 points does not restrict discrimination nor does it prevent slavery as no one is harmed.
you against euthanasia?

It truly is as simple as that.

it is far more complex. you cannot abide by the constitution into the year 3000, you need referendums, you cant allow mob mentality otherwise minorities suffer, you didnt prevent anything really. you just allow a vast amount of illgood to befall on victims.

Daganev · **Joined:** Mon Jun 01, 2009 1:25 am **Posts:** 231

Steven wrote:

As i've said, I have no problem with polygamy. However the problem lies with "ghost" and "animal" marriages - neither are beings bound by the laws of the land, and neither can be held to a consenting contract...

...not to mention they'd probably have problems signing their name.

I don't understand. Children are forced to go to school without thier consent. Animals are forced to be neutered without their consent. Dead people are often treated in all sorts of ways without their consent.

Why can't a family sign a marriage contract on behalf of the deceased?
Why can't the owner of an animal sign a contract on behalf of the animal? Isn't that what is done when you sell an animal to someone who is going to butcher them for food?

If a "ghost marriage" sounds weird to you just think of the following situation.
Steve and Martin gets engaged and have been living together for 10 years. Steve has a child from before, whom Martin has been raising for the past 10 years as well. Suddenly, Steve gets in a car accident and dies. Now, the state wants to come and take the child away, or Steve's parents decide they want to raise the child. Martin is screwed, unless the government allows him to finalize the marriage post death, and then Martin will become the rightful parent without years of legal fees and arguments and new adoption procedures.

@Ducky: If people choose against gay marriage, it's because they disagree on what Marriage is. You are not discriminating against Martin when you tell him he can't get married after Steve has died. You are just making a statement of fact. Are you discriminating against John when you tell him he can't marry his horse? I argue that you are not, because John can't be married to his horse. Why? Because the definition of a marriage does not include a man getting married to a horse.

msomeoneelsez · **Joined:** Sun May 31, 2009 9:16 pm **Posts:** 126

mrducky wrote:

Why not change back to the ways that allowed people the freedom to choose between what they believe to be right and wrong? Why not allow the People to choose between gay marriage and not.

because, if the people choose against gay marriage then obviously the gays will be discriminated against for being a minority.

Not so, as has very clearly been shown by history, discrimination is harmful. Breaks my rule #3

The only reason that I can see for not doing those is that everyone has a desire for their way to be placed unto their little world. Everyone wants some form of control over others, control to make said others not do anything wrong by the controller's opinions. That is all that legislation is... control.

and who gets these "controllers" into power? the people.

And what better option do the people have? I am not arguing about the system, I am arguing that a different mindset be had by everyone; that the government should stay out of morality and should let individuals choose. That is what I was meaning by the people, individual people.

Control breeds problems. That is one of the reasons why the Chinese economy boomed once Capitalism was allowed. Capitalism is a lack of control.

lol, to say China has lack of control is plain stupid. the government has its hands in EVERY major corporation and industry. they might have a free marketish system, but the government points the funds and still makes the decisions.

You have now mistaken what I said. I did not say China has a lack of control, I said that Capitalism was allowed. Very big difference, so don't attempt to put a spin on something when you don't understand what is being said.

Without Hong Kong's introduction of Capitalism into Chinese society, China would still be quite far behind the US. That is a fact.

And hell, for all of you environmentalists... Guess what nature is! A lack of control. What do humans do to environments? Control them.

so making farmland is bad? prefer to starve?

Yet another point where you misunderstand me. I have never once advocated the opposite extreme than what we have, I merely made a point that we have an extreme. I would find what fallacy you are displaying at the moment, but I truly don't care enough about this topic or debate to find it for you. I just suggest you stop displaying it.

Now I am not advocating Anarchy, I am just advocating minimal control... to keep people from killing each other... to keep people from harming each other... etc.

at what point does control become minimal control? what point minimal control becomes anarchy?

Once again, look at the Constitution. I do FIRMLY believe that it is the single best setup of government that has ever been made. It clearly describes who has what powers, and it gives a very acceptable way to amend the powers should the amendment make sense.

In fact, I outlined my 3 rules for that already.

1: The actions of one person drastically harms another person, i.e. child abuse, assisted suicide.
2: The actions of one person causes financial harm to another person or entity, i.e. stealing, embezzling.
3: Any other thing that can actually harm someone or something else.

you seem to have ignored the "laws". your 3 points does not restrict discrimination nor does it prevent slavery as no one is harmed.
you against euthanasia?

How have I ignored these rules? Discrimination is extremely harmful, just ask anyone who has been truly discriminated against. I suggest an African American woman who is older than 50. Slavery not harmful? Umm... I really have no idea what world you come from.

As for Euthanasia, in the case of the death sentence, I support it. Here is why; the death sentence is a punishment for an extreme crime. If following my three rules, the extreme crime would be harmful to someone or something else. And for that, I have three words. "Jury of peers"

It truly is as simple as that.

it is far more complex. you cannot abide by the constitution into the year 3000, you need referendums, you cant allow mob mentality otherwise minorities suffer, you didnt prevent anything really. you just allow a vast amount of illgood to befall on victims.

You need to read the Constitution, man. You obviously don't understand it. Mob mentality is like what we have today in the realm of presidential elections. Look at the Constitution (and its amendments... i.e. the 13th Amendment, which bans slavery) and you will see that it is very easy to follow and to improve as time goes by, so long as the improvements are necessary and make sense.

Honestly, look at the Constitution, truly analyze it, interpret it as the Founding Fathers did. Once you do that, see if you can honestly tell me again that the Constitution cannot be followed even until the year 3500.

Also, when looking at the Constitution, you must realize that each individual state is being allowed more power than the Federal government has. If there really is any debate over gay marriage, it should be in the states, unless each state constitution clearly legislates upon gay marriage, or marriage in general.

Same-Sex marriage