TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Health Inspectors shut down 7-year-old girl's lemonade stand
Pages (12): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 »

quote:

Originally posted by Lews So segregation in the south was okay?

R.j. was prophetic

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. I'm not saying that I disagree with you, but people are going to jump on that and twist your words.

Segregation was separate but unequal btw

So if it was equal would you be fine with it?

quote:

Originally posted by Lews So if it was equal would you be fine with it?

But it wasn't.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. I said I didn't have to, but I still did, didn't I?

I recommend more ad hominems about stuff you don't know about, personally.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. But it wasn't.

Right now I'm doing one of these things that's called a "hypothetical."

I'm asking if it was equal, would you be okay with it?

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I recommend more ad hominems about stuff you don't know about, personally.

And what exactly don't I know?

Kevin, I'd still like to see your opinion on the two questions below. Not so much for the sake of arguing, moreso that I can understand your point of view.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru Other than the issue of homosexual marriage, what "traditions" are being radically de-constructed? Times change, traditions change and people, society and cultures evolve. Why can't we adapt traditions to reflect our current society? If we keep the core values of these traditions alive, where is the harm? In addition, why is it such a terrible thing for homosexuals to be considered "married" to each other? Yeah, I get that it's not "traditional", but one thing that I have never understood amongst this fervored debate throughout the years is why so many people see the concept as vile. Can you explain that to me? I'm not trying to be rude here, it's just something that I have simply never understood.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Right now I'm doing one of these things that's called a "hypothetical." I'm asking if it was equal, would you be okay with it?

The fact that segregation was enforced out of something as petty as race automatically makes it stupid and pointless. But, since these were racists, it's obvious that there wasn't going to be any equality.

So you're telling me, if segregationists were not racist, but still felt the need to implement segregation, would I be okay with it?

Your hypothetical situation makes no sense.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. And what exactly don't I know?

I'm going to guess you don't know anything about me, including my education, or my intelligence.

Respond with another ad hominem, thanks.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews I'm going to guess you don't know anything about me, including my education, or my intelligence. Respond with another ad hominem, thanks.

The same could be said about you. And, yet, every post you make in other threads you find something you don't like, you unfailingly pull a

"you're a disgusting piece of shit"

or

"you're a worthless human being"

sort of remark.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. The same could be said about you. And, yet, every post you make in other threads you find something you don't like, you unfailingly pull a "you're a disgusting piece of shit" or "you're a worthless human being" sort of remark.

If people don't like cats they are worthless human beings. That's just a fact.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews If people don't like cats they are worthless human beings. That's just a fact.

Uh huh.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. The fact that segregation was enforced out of something as petty as race automatically makes it stupid and pointless. But, since these were racists, it's obvious that there wasn't going to be any equality. So you're telling me, if segregationists were not racist, but still felt the need to implement segregation, would I be okay with it? Your hypothetical situation makes no sense.

So the fact that people want this to be enforced out of something as petty as sexual preference automatically makes it stupid and pointless.

You can say the exact same shit about gay marriage as you can about segregation.

Of course it makes no sense! Segregation makes no sense. And neither does not allowing gay people to get married.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews So the fact that people want this to be enforced out of something as petty as sexual preference automatically makes it stupid and pointless. You can say the exact same shit about gay marriage as you can about segregation. Of course it makes no sense! Segregation makes no sense. And neither does not allowing gay people to get married.

Well, here's where we disagree. I do believe that marriage should be defined between a man and woman. It's one of those traditions that I think we ought to keep as it it and as it's always been. It's a tradition which I, and a whole lot of other people, think isn't petty. So, yes, I believe in that? What's the harm in that? What harm does it do to gay people if they can't call it marriage? I don't give a flip if they receive equal "benefits"--I could care less--but I don't like the idea of calling it a marriage.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru Kevin, I'd still like to see your opinion on the two questions below. Not so much for the sake of arguing, moreso that I can understand your point of view. quote: Other than the issue of homosexual marriage, what "traditions" are being radically de-constructed? Times change, traditions change and people, society and cultures evolve. Why can't we adapt traditions to reflect our current society? If we keep the core values of these traditions alive, where is the harm? In addition, why is it such a terrible thing for homosexuals to be considered "married" to each other? Yeah, I get that it's not "traditional", but one thing that I have never understood amongst this fervored debate throughout the years is why so many people see the concept as vile. Can you explain that to me? I'm not trying to be rude here, it's just something that I have simply never understood.

I hear you man.. I understand times change and all that. I'm all for advancement and welcome it. I'm not advocating something crazy like still wearing a 3-piece suit to a baseball game or expecting to have a wife that speaks when spoken to and wears an apron all day in the kitchen. Some traditions, like that of marriage and upholding the original meaning of that word are just important in American society. Everyone has the equal right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is... that's the equal protection. It's not marriage if the two people of the same sex get married. Call it what you want, make up a new name for it, but it isn't marriage. And a Civil Union holds just as much protection under the law as marriage. So why do we have to call it "marriage"? That's my issue.

Now, you seem to mistakenly thinking that I believe it's a terrible thing for gays to be "married" or that I think it's "vile", as you said. That's not true at all. We have something new and different from the original tradition, so let's call it something different... and give it the exact same level of protection/equality under the law: Civil Unions. Is this so out of touch? I don't think so.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. Well, here's where we disagree. I do believe that marriage should be defined between a man and woman. It's one of those traditions that I think we ought to keep as it it and as it's always been. It's a tradition which I, and a whole lot of other people, think isn't petty. So, yes, I believe in that? What's the harm in that? What harm does it do to gay people if they can't call it marriage? I don't give a flip if they receive equal "benefits"--I could care less--but I don't like the idea of calling it a marriage.

Why? Why does it matter that it's between a man and a woman? Isn't the important thing in the marriage the love? I don't think marriage is petty, and neither do homosexuals. That's why it hurts them so much that they aren't allowed to be married. They have to have their own little thing. Yes, it's similar, but it isn't the same.

You obviously think marriage is an important thing - wouldn't you hate it if you were told you couldn't be married? You could go have the same benefits and rights, but you can't actually be married. If we allow you to be married, it's going to defile it and ruin it for the rest of us. You're not natural and we're not going to let you get involved with our institution.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss Now, you seem to mistakenly thinking that I believe it's a terrible thing for gays to be "married" or that I think it's "vile", as you said. That's not true at all. We have something new and different from the original tradition, so let's call it something different... and give it the exact same level of protection/equality under the law: Civil Unions. Is this so out of touch? I don't think so.

Marriages today between men and women are already completely different from the original tradition!

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss I hear you man.. I understand times change and all that. I'm all for advancement and welcome it. I'm not advocating something crazy like still wearing a 3-piece suit to a baseball game or expecting to have a wife that speaks when spoken to and wears an apron all day in the kitchen. Some traditions, like that of marriage and upholding the original meaning of that word are just important in American society. Everyone has the equal right to marry somebody of the opposite sex, which is what marriage is... that's the equal protection. It's not marriage if the two people of the same sex get married. Call it what you want, make up a new name for it, but it isn't marriage. And a Civil Union holds just as much protection under the law as marriage. So why do we have to call it "marriage"? That's my issue. Now, you seem to mistakenly thinking that I believe it's a terrible thing for gays to be "married" or that I think it's "vile", as you said. That's not true at all. We have something new and different from the original tradition, so let's call it something different... and give it the exact same level of protection/equality under the law: Civil Unions. Is this so out of touch? I don't think so.

I can see where you're coming from on a lot of points, but I still don't understand why it can't be called marriage. But, whatever. I think we've both done enough for the day.

quote:

Originally posted by Lews Why? Why does it matter that it's between a man and a woman? Isn't the important thing in the marriage the love? I don't think marriage is petty, and neither do homosexuals. That's why it hurts them so much that they aren't allowed to be married. They have to have their own little thing. Yes, it's similar, but it isn't the same. You obviously think marriage is an important thing - wouldn't you hate it if you were told you couldn't be married? You could go have the same benefits and rights, but you can't actually be married. If we allow you to be married, it's going to defile it and ruin it for the rest of us. You're not natural and we're not going to let you get involved with our institution.

Why does it matter? Because it's a tradition we've had for as long as we can remember.

Look, don't take this the wrong way. And I've already said this in another thread, and I won't mind saying it again: I, personally, believe that homosexuality is an unnatural thing. Why? That's another story. But, as far as homosexuals living in society, I don't have a problem with it. Because I do believe in tolerance and acceptance. Nobody is going to change how I feel about that, not any politician, not any law, nothing. It might sound convenient for me saying this, and it is, but I'm in a unique position where I can say what I want about marriage because I'm not a homosexual. It feels shitty, trust me, but I must draw the line somewhere. I honestly feel that homosexuality would taint our concept of marriage. No, it wouldn't bring about the end of the world, but it would it taint my and other's perception of it.

There. You can call me a bigot, but it really doesn't matter to me.

As long as you can recognize that you're a bigot, then it's all gravy.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru As long as you can recognize that you're a bigot, then it's all gravy.

quote:

Originally posted by R.j. You can call me a bigot, but it really doesn't matter to me.

this discussion on marriage merits it's on thread.

quote:

Originally posted by idoru

Yep. "You" can.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.