10 year old does not do the pledge of allegiance.

[shadowsworn]

The US still has a Pledge of Allegiance? How very fascist

kid will grow up to be a BLACK METULZ REBEL

[mazul]

You're forcing your ideas on other people that want that change, some people being gay and married won't hurt you in any way, while stopping people from getting married simply because you don't like them does cause them problems.

Ahh I knew this thread would be full of homophobia ...

Your implication that I am homophobic is wrong. One can of course not logically deduct if I am lying or not, so I'll just point out that I am argueing for why I think it is reasonable that some people argue against homosexual marriage. If far more people in this thread would have argued against homosexual marriage, I would have chosen to argue why I think it is reasoneble for homosexuals to demand homosexual marriage to become legal.

As for your argument that "it won't hurt you(in between the lines: in a severe physical or psychological way)": same can be said about polygamy. If you are not prepared to embrace polygamy as well as homosexual marriage, your argument contains a severe fallacy.

Let me also point out that some people do genuinly get upset when they see their traditions change in a manner they don't want to. For instance, they can see it as an attack against some of their fond memories from their past. When you are argumenting for your view you are also argumenting for "forcing" your beliefs into the society in such way that their comfort is damaged. This mechanism goes both ways.

[mazul]

It doesn't matter how "they" see it.

Past is past and shit changes, accept it. That's why it's an extremely good thing that sooner or later, baby boomers will be dead and extinct. Why? Because there's new things that older generations will not accept, and they have the power to vote against it just because it doesn't coincide with their blinkered and outdated view of the world.



You are missing the difference by a country mile.

Someone being anti-gay is not being stopped from doing anything by gay marriage being legal or complete.

Someone being gay and gay marriage being illegal because of someone anti-gay? They ARE being stopped from something.

You are not grasping this. It's like smoking bans in restaurants. It's not a matter of trying to stop people smoking, it's a matter of protecting non-smokers rights not to experience the habit.

Same with gay marriage. They're not forcing you to be gay or get a gay marriage, or even LIKE/AGREE with homosexuality. They just want the right to do as they wish with their own lives, and there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't be able to.

You can dislike abortion but be pro-choice.

You don't have to stop something just because you dislike it, especially if it has literally 100% nothing to do with you. No point in insisting "It does concern me.", because it has nothing to do with you, and it doesn't infringe upon your life.

You are forcing a change into the country/world which some people never wanted. How can it be more clear than that? One good example of this is the whole gun issue in U.S.A.; what is the no. 1 argument against stricter gun laws? Well the answer is: tradition and idealism.

[DarkAztaroth]

You are forcing a change into the country/world which some people never wanted. How can it be more clear than that? One good example of this is the whole gun issue in U.S.A.; what is the no 1 argument against stricter gun laws? Well the answer is: tradition and idealism.

You're saying as long as 1% of the population will be homophobe gay people won't have the same rights as heterosexual people ? That's dumb, everyone should have the same rights. Now you're gonna say the womans and black people shouldn't have rights or what ?

This ain't about religion, this ain't about tradition.

It's about money and security.

[Norrin Radd]

You are forcing a change into the country/world which some people never wanted. How can it be more clear than that? One good example of this is the whole gun issue in U.S.A.; what is the no 1 argument against stricter gun laws? Well the answer is: tradition and idealism.

I'l say it again and if you still don't get the point; I'm out.

Forcing a change that allows gays to get married does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT force anti-gays to stop doing anything or restrict their life choices. FACT.

Forcing a change that stops people actively pursuing happiness because of their sexuality does.

One side isn't forcing the other to DO anything besides accept that, Heaven forbid, some people want to indulge in a ceremony that doesn't affect them in the slightest. They're not asking you to agree, they're asking you to accept.

The other side is "We don't accept it and we won't allow it. It does nothing to change my life or mess my day up, but no. You can't do it.".

That's my last post if my point still isn't clear to you.

[Str1der]

You are forcing a change into the country/world which some people never wanted. How can it be more clear than that? One good example of this is the whole gun issue in U.S.A.; what is the no. 1 argument against stricter gun laws? Well the answer is: tradition and idealism.

That, and the biggy in the Bill of Rights. But what do I know.

[Claudezero]

You are forcing a change into the country/world which some people never wanted. How can it be more clear than that? One good example of this is the whole gun issue in U.S.A.; what is the no. 1 argument against stricter gun laws? Well the answer is: tradition and idealism.

your still forcing beliefs on people, that alone is worse then forcing a change.

and like strider says. the FREAKING bill of rights.

[IronyTaken]

You are forcing a change into the country/world which some people never wanted. How can it be more clear than that? One good example of this is the whole gun issue in U.S.A.; what is the no. 1 argument against stricter gun laws? Well the answer is: tradition and idealism.

Or we could look at the facts instead of the opinions.

Does having stricter laws on guns improve society or not?

Does having the death penalty lessen crime? Is it economically better?



Tradition is stupid. The use of marriage has changed for thousands of years. Should we go back to the tradition of women being used just as property?

How about the tradition of owning other people as property. The tradition to be able to kill your kids and get away with it. The tradition to beat a commoner to death and if you are a noble you only have to pay a few silvers.

[DarkAztaroth]

No, I am saying that I understand why some people do not want the change and I do not consider them to be bastards, ignorant or idiots because of it. If enough people want the change, then the government should allow it, no doubt about it.

Please read the post above yours, Xeno is better at explaining than I am. His post explains why your 2 last posts aren't logical. Anyway I'm leaving this thread. Now I'm seeing why my law and social education teacher was sad this class wasn't given in any other high school..

[Xenonight2]

No, I am saying that I understand why some people do not want the change and I do not consider them to be bastards, ignorant or idiots because of it. If enough people want the change, then the government should allow it, no doubt about it.

No.

Some things should not be left to a democratic vote. Ever heard of the buzzphrase, "Tyranny of the Majority"? It's usually how slavery, and bigotry, and persecution for religion, race, or sexuality starts.

Just because the majority wants something does not make it legal, or even morally right. To bring up a previous example again: even if 100% of the population did write in votes in that George Bush be elected again in the 2008 election, he could not, because the law states that he could not. Not that George Bush ever cared about the laws of the country he ran, but that's a different story.

[Claudezero]

No.

Some things should not be left to a democratic vote. Ever heard of the buzzphrase, "Tyranny of the Majority"? It's usually how slavery, and bigotry, and persecution for religion, race, or sexuality starts.

Just because the majority wants something does not make it legal, or even morally right.

basically in a nutshell of this post, a democratic country we need agreements on both houses, which rarely happens.

[mazul]

That, and the biggy in the Bill of Rights. But what do I know.

The Bill of Rights is not a flawless document that tells you what is right and what is wrong. It can be changed. For instance, slavery was for quite some time allowed according to the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, there is also room for interpretation, which is why several people argued that the current version of the Bill of Rights does not necessarily justify the current weapon laws. This is why I stand by my previous argument that the main reasons against stricter gun laws are: tradition and ideology.

[Ronin]

Fact is, the only people who are affected by a law allowing same sex marriages are the ones who are asking for it. Why, then, should they be denied that right because another group, who is not affected by this law in any important way are against it? That is the hole in your argument.

The little issue in the whole deal, why people need to find a way to agree and work things out is this:

It affects me, if I pay it.
My taxes are used, it's not a matter that does not concern me at all.

Just recently there has been a big step in my country to enable gays to have a legal partnership, which I totally approve of.
If I wouldn't though, I would be frustrated and I would be unhappy, if I had not voiced this frustration publicly and politically.

[Paladin Catling]

eh who wants 2 or more wives>? have they not noticed that by the middle age time...they only nag and complain alot...just saying id rather have one nagging me than 2.

and I can care less is some gay dude wants to get married doesnt harm me.


If I was the teacher, I would of smacked the shit out of this kid...then asked him how he likes his education and his maintained roads and his (semi workable justice system) and how he likes all of those rights that we grant our people. Then I would of showed him pics of what happens to gays in other countries, we might not be the friendliest community of people to gays but we sure as shit dont publicly kill them and claim on national tv that we dont have any gays in our country (cough iran cough)

lol I love people who use their rights to complain about rights...stfu and enjoy the rights you have cause in most other countries you dont have them or no where near as much freedom/rights.

but I guess thats a good sign is when people are so care free they can sit around all day using their rights to complain about their rights instead of wondering if the guy down the street is going to murder your family or if the war will be at you city next and how to avod it without dieing...

but hey america sucks right....(and btw look it up there quite a few states that have made gay marriage legal so it well on it way to being legal soon)


scorpio

Aren't we glad that you'd never have the chance of being one?



Catling

[Xenonight2]

Let me therefore give you a counter-argument: what if, in the future, due to a scientific failure, mutation or virus, all *****ids have a 50% risk of going berserk when they turn 20. Would I give a damn about any discrimination laws then? No, I am pretty sure the people would demand the government to make special rules for *****ids to ensure safety of the rest of the population. The constitution would have to be changed to allow a certain degree of discrimination of *****ids.

There is a difference between giving someone less rights because they choose to dick other dudes in the butt and then get married versus a whole population who have a serious genetic disorder that makes them a risk of being dangerous to society. If you can't tell what that difference is, then I'm afraid I'm not going to debate with you any further. I also suggest you use real world examples, not something one is akin to find in a zombie movie. I.e. my example using segregation: I see making homosexual marriage illegal no different than making interracial marriages illegal, and no amount of people voting for it is going to make me think that those are the proper things to do.

Democracy, to put it shortly, is not the highest ideal. I do not care if the Constitution affirms that or disagrees with me. I do not care if the Constitution says, "All gays are a sin against God," because it would not affect my position on that issue. My position would be: the constitution should be changed so that everyone has equal rights.

Think of it this way:

We used to not have equal rights for women and men. Now we do. But there was resistance.

We used to not have equal rights for races. Now we do. But there was resistance.

We used to not have equal rights for disabled people. Now we do. But there was resistance.

We do not have equal rights for people of non-traditional sexuality. Now we'd better. There's resistance.

This is simply the next step in the chain of getting people equal rights so they can live their lives however they want as long as they do not harm others while they're at it.

Let me ask you this: If segregation and apartheid existed today because people with voting rights continual vote "Yes" to keep it in place, do you think that it is morally right to take away the rights of decent Human beings based on the color of their skin?

If your answer is yes, then you value the idea Democracy over Human lives.

If you answer no, then we effectively agree.

[gratscorpio]

Aren't we glad that you'd never have the chance of being one?



Catling

Actually catling the problem with todays youth is we have taken the job of parenting and limited it so much that parents cant properly raise their children...im not talking beating them but my dad hit me more than once when i was really stupid and you know what i learned real quick not to be that ****ing stupid...

Everytime i see a kid acting up I laugh thinking an what a smack to the face would do for that kid...but wait if the parent smacks thier child for acting in a rude manor (especially those repeat offenders who in all honestly need a good smack) they would be branded an abusive parent and have the kid taken away...then that kid lacking any form of discipline would grow up to be a dead beat and a loser...just saying a smack when something truly ****ing stupid/rude is being done has never done anything but make the kid realize just how stupid/rude he/she was being.

But ya hey just concentrate on that one phrase idk maybe your dad smacked you for stealing a candy bar as a kid and that mentally traumatized you or some thing>? i just find it funny that the ones that say smacking your kid for being an idiot is wrong yet they see bullying in school as ok and just something that happens....

but maybe i speak of back in the day etc when a kids father more than likely wasnt a dead beat drunk loser/drugdealer/etcetcetc and someone the kid could actually look up to?

now im not advocating abuse just discipline, as it is really needed alot more kid now and days walk around with this im hgh and mighty mentality(thinking school isnt cool etc etc etc) when they should really be knocked down a notch for being idiots by their parents, but then again most parents now and days are dead beat losers i guess so maybe it wouldnt make a difference not like their being reminded by someone they actually look up to.

and school had alot more people who actually learned something and took school seriously when the teachers could hit them and keep them in line...todays society is so violent yet so passive at the same time in confuses me. I mean we all support armed forces that fight wars but if you kid gets out of line in school and a teacher smacks that kid for being an idiot we are up in arms saying he/she is a terrible person...


/sorry for the side rant

scorpio

[Bad Hamster]

Now if he just meets a grace and we have a real Will & Grace ( Ow don't tell me this has been said yet!>.>).

[Bad Hamster]

Will & Grace is the show that made me understand that sexuality and gender aren't really all that important, and it just makes sense to treat them equally since no one gets hurt and everyone is happy that way.

It learned me to fear gay ppl tbh xD

[Xenonight2]

IF i was against gay marriage, by making me have to live in a country where gays can get married, your pushing your view on me.

That's like saying if I drive a truck, I'm pushing my ability to drive a truck on you.

Unless the fact that I am driving a truck directly affects you, you have no right to claim that your view or rights are being oppressed. Especially since you still have freedom of speech, so you are free to voice your disagreement as much as you want. That's hardly oppression.

Besides, what's wrong with pushing view points?

I think it's a great thing that people are pushing their rights and saying, "Hey we can get married if you want, and you're a bigot if you say otherwise." It's what got blacks, Women, disabled people, veterans, and so many more people their rights in this country which they enjoy now.

[V-Opolis]

That's like saying if I drive a truck, I'm pushing my ability to drive a truck on you.

Unless the fact that I am driving a truck directly affects you, you have no right to claim that your view or rights are being oppressed. Especially since you still have freedom of speech, so you are free to voice your disagreement as much as you want. That's hardly oppression.

Besides, what's wrong with pushing view points?

I think it's a great thing that people are pushing their rights and saying, "Hey we can get married if you want, and you're a bigot if you say otherwise." It's what got blacks, Women, disabled people, veterans, and so many more people their rights in this country which they enjoy now.

but only if they agree with yours right?

[Xenonight2]

but only if they agree with yours right?

No. There are plenty of things that I disagree with that are passed, but I do not feel like I, or anyone are having their due rights being trampled upon, let alone being victim of outright oppression.

I.e. the ridiculous bailouts. No one was oppressed, no had their rights taken away, and so on. But they were still legal, and they still got passed. And you believe me, we got debt like nothing else get shoved down our throats.

[Claudezero]

but only if they agree with yours right?

wow read more.

he meant that people had to make people see their viewpoint and why they are suffering.

[mazul]

There is a difference between giving someone less rights because they choose to dick other dudes in the butt and then get married versus a whole population who have a serious genetic disorder that makes them a risk of being dangerous to society. If you can't tell what that difference is, then I'm afraid I'm not going to debate with you any further. I also suggest you use real world examples, not something one is akin to find in a zombie movie. I.e. my example using segregation: I see making homosexual marriage illegal no different than making interracial marriages illegal, and no amount of people voting for it is going to make me think that those are the proper things to do.

Democracy, to put it shortly, is not the highest ideal. I do not care if the Constitution affirms that or disagrees with me. I do not care if the Constitution says, "All gays are a sin against God," because it would not affect my position on that issue. My position would be: the constitution should be changed so that everyone has equal rights.

Think of it this way:

We used to not have equal rights for women and men. Now we do. But there was resistance.

We used to not have equal rights for races. Now we do. But there was resistance.

We used to not have equal rights for disabled people. Now we do. But there was resistance.

We do not have equal rights for people of non-traditional sexuality. Now we'd better. There's resistance.

This is simply the next step in the chain of getting people equal rights so they can live their lives however they want as long as they do not harm others while they're at it.

Let me ask you this: If segregation and apartheid existed today because people with voting rights continual vote "Yes" to keep it in place, do you think that it is morally right to take away the rights of decent Human beings based on the color of their skin?

If your answer is yes, then you value the idea Democracy over Human lives.

If you answer no, then we effectively agree.

If I grew up in a country where apartheid had been a part of society as long as I have lived, I am not sure if I would see it is as wrong or take any actions against it. I would be specially insecure if apartheid was a predominant feature in the rest of the world as well. I am humble enough to realize that given a different youth in a different time, I am far from certain that I would have the same ideology I have today.

However, if I, today, were suddenly thrown into a society where people, using democracy, were continueing to uphold apartheid, I would not like it, but I would try and come to understand why people were continueing to vote in the manner they do. I would not hate them nor think they were devils, just see them a regular people with families to take care of, ideals and a past. I would, however, start long discussions with people and maybe even decide to work actively against discrimination if I was sufficiently emotional; mostly by pointing out any statement from people or the government which contradicts science.

Let me also point out that I am fundamentally a moral nihilist, but can play around with other perspectives if it amuses me. I think that can explain quite many of my views.

As I mentioned earlier: my biggest "fear" with having eternal laws, is that they are easily bias to the time and the people/government that wrote them. That "fear" is what I have to compare with your "fear" of modern democratic countries voting for a change in the constitution that allows oppression of a population within the country. I see your fear as a far less significant factor than my fear.

[Claudezero]

Well, to illustrate the discomfort, some people have due to gay marriages being legal, I ask you to imagine an U.S.A. where christmas trees were, one year, suddenly banned forever from christmas. If you can't see why some people might see that as a loss due to traditional reasons, then I don't know what to tell you.

things that deal with economy like that will never happen, tyrant businesses will never let that happen.

on the traditional scope, like HELL thatll happen either, if that is banned, all other holidays of OTHER religions will have to face the same consequence.

[mazul]

things that deal with economy like that will never happen, tyrant businesses will never let that happen.

My point was to illustrate the feeling some people may have about gay marriages, just so you can understand how they might feel.

Furthermore, you can't always put the happiness of other people in front of your happiness.