|
|
| Author |
Message |
Nahualli
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 11 Oct 2002
Posts: 8461
|
 Posted: 02/27/04 - 12:16 Post subject: Re: Homosexual Marriage (another post about it, yay)
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | | If the country truly hated gays as much as so many of you believe, civil unions would not even be a question. You would get nothing. |
As of right now we.... have.... nothing.........
As of this point in time no state will recognize a same **** union.
get...that...through...your...head. Please.
-Nah-
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
 |
kireol
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 02 Aug 2003
Posts: 9517
Location: Royal Oak, MI
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 19:41 Post subject: Re: Homosexual Marriage (another post about it, yay)
|
|
|
| Nahualli wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | If the country truly hated gays as much as so many of you believe, civil unions would not even be a question. You would get nothing. |
As of right now we.... have.... nothing.........
As of this point in time no state will recognize a same **** union.
get...that...through...your...head. Please.
-Nah- |
As of right now....you......are.......clueless
because you do have rights. they've been posted numurous times already on this board. f*g
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
quotison
RealPoor Sensei
Joined: 13 Oct 2002
Posts: 1594
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 21:09 Post subject: Re: Homosexual Marriage (another post about it, yay)
|
|
|
| kireol wrote: | | Nahualli wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | If the country truly hated gays as much as so many of you believe, civil unions would not even be a question. You would get nothing. |
As of right now we.... have.... nothing.........
As of this point in time no state will recognize a same **** union.
get...that...through...your...head. Please.
-Nah- |
As of right now....you......are.......clueless
because you do have rights. they've been posted numurous times already on this board. f*g |
Just not equal rights 
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 21:13 Post subject:
|
|
|
You have the right to stfu,
You have the right to work for free without compensation
You have the right to be sold at any time and for any price your owner deems appropriate
You have the right to be sumarily executed without trial
You have the right to be tortured or confined without just cause
You have the right to try to run away, we have the right to hunt you down and do anything we want to you when we catch you.
and morons said slaves dont have rights.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 23:00 Post subject: Re: Homosexual Marriage (another post about it, yay)
|
|
|
| Nahualli wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: | | If the country truly hated gays as much as so many of you believe, civil unions would not even be a question. You would get nothing. |
As of right now we.... have.... nothing.........
As of this point in time no state will recognize a same **** union.
get...that...through...your...head. Please.
-Nah- |
Nah, for the love of Christ, read everything I wrote and stop taking single sentences out of context.
I have said MORE THAN ONCE, that I think the answer is to pass a FEDERAL law stating that civil unions are accorded all rights and privileges that marriages are. In fact, most people seem to agree with this viewpoint. My point, and AGAIN I HAVE TO f*****g REPEAT MYSELF CUZ YOU FUCKTARDS CAN'T READ, is that if the country was truly trying to keep gays down, they would not even agree with that. The majority seems to be okay with a compromise that gives you the rights you keep claiming you're being denied and allows the rest of society to keep their values intact.
In fact Nah, you've already stated that this would suit you just fine. Well, which is it? Do you agree with me when all I did was post what you've already said is an acceptable compromise? Or do you disagree and make yourself a liar?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Silvermouse
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 11015
|
|
Posted: 02/27/04 - 23:40 Post subject: Re: Homosexual Marriage (another post about it, yay)
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: |
Consider, for just one moment, that for most of the country, this is a question of marriage values and not one of equal rights. If the country truly hated gays as much as so many of you believe, civil unions would not even be a question. You would get nothing. Period. Yet most people are in favor of civil unions because most people are reasonable enough to realize that it is unfair to exclude gays from marriage benefits. Yeah, that sounds like a bunch of bigots to me. |
My point is, it isn't a question of marriage values. That's just the fasade that is used. If marriage values were so sacred, divorce rates wouldn't be what they are. It is an attempt to stop the gay agenda, which isn't so big to me since I dislike agendas to begin with.
But amending the Constitution just so that a rather large group of your country's populace can't get married is lame. I don't want to hear the "under God" argument since many gays are religious (my mother being one of them).
If worse comes to worse, why don't they just make "civil unions" or whatever be the same as marriage as far as taxing and benefits are concerned, but without the name.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Aandidar
Sir Postalot
Joined: 23 Oct 2002
Posts: 1182
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 00:02 Post subject: Re: Homosexual Marriage (another post about it, yay)
|
|
|
| Silvermouse wrote: |
If worse comes to worse, why don't they just make "civil unions" or whatever be the same as marriage as far as taxing and benefits are concerned, but without the name. |
Exactly.[/b]
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Tolanin
RealPoor Guru
Joined: 16 Oct 2002
Posts: 3551
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 00:12 Post subject: Re: Homosexual Marriage (another post about it, yay)
|
|
|
| Aandidar wrote: | | Silvermouse wrote: |
If worse comes to worse, why don't they just make "civil unions" or whatever be the same as marriage as far as taxing and benefits are concerned, but without the name. |
Exactly.[/b] |
exactly
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 00:54 Post subject: Re: Homosexual Marriage (another post about it, yay)
|
|
|
| Silvermouse wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: |
Consider, for just one moment, that for most of the country, this is a question of marriage values and not one of equal rights. If the country truly hated gays as much as so many of you believe, civil unions would not even be a question. You would get nothing. Period. Yet most people are in favor of civil unions because most people are reasonable enough to realize that it is unfair to exclude gays from marriage benefits. Yeah, that sounds like a bunch of bigots to me. |
My point is, it isn't a question of marriage values. That's just the fasade that is used. If marriage values were so sacred, divorce rates wouldn't be what they are. It is an attempt to stop the gay agenda, which isn't so big to me since I dislike agendas to begin with.
But amending the Constitution just so that a rather large group of your country's populace can't get married is lame. I don't want to hear the "under God" argument since many gays are religious (my mother being one of them).
If worse comes to worse, why don't they just make "civil unions" or whatever be the same as marriage as far as taxing and benefits are concerned, but without the name. |
Conservatives don't like the high divorce rate. The reason it's high, though, is due to feminism. The divorce rate was low before feminism took hold in the 60's (when divorce rates rapidly rose). Feminists are also part of the same group as the activist homosexuals (as many are lesbians) who are trying to legalize gay marriage. So really the same ideology is behind gay marriage and high divorce rates. Congratulations!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 01:22 Post subject:
|
|
|
You're hilarious.
Just take a wild stab at why divorce rates went up when women were given rights. I guess the notion of women trapped in loveless, abusive marriages appeals to you, though.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 01:26 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | You're hilarious.
Just take a wild stab at why divorce rates went up when women were given rights. I guess the notion of women trapped in loveless, abusive marriages appeals to you, though. |
Women got additional rights in the 60's? I thought that was back in the twenties! Silly me!
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 01:28 Post subject:
|
|
|
BTW, I also find this awfully hilarious too:
http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/home.asp
| Quote: | Nonreligious Americans are less likely to divorce than any other belief group, according to a survey by Christian pollsters. The study, conducted by the Barna Research Group in late 1999, shows that one out of every four American adults has experienced at least one divorce. Among the characteristics that do not seem to be related to divorce are educational achievement, household income, and political ideology. But, to the surprise of the pollsters, Christians are more likely to divorce than unbelievers, and Baptists and born-again Christians experience more divorces than other Christians.
Using statistics drawn from a nationwide survey of nearly 4000 adults, the data show that 27% of born-again Christians are currently or have previously been divorced, compared to 24% among adults who are not born-again. (Because of the large sample size involved, that difference is statistically significant.)
The Christian denomination whose adherents have the highest likelihood of getting divorced are Baptists. Nationally, 29% of all Baptist adults have been divorced. The only Christian group to surpass that level are those associated with non-denominational Protestant churches: 34% of those adults have undergone a divorce. Of the nation's major Christian groups, Catholics and Lutherans have the lowest percentage of divorced individuals (21%). People who attend mainline Protestant churches, overall, experience divorce on par with the national average (25%).
Among non-Christian groups the levels vary. Jews are among those most likely to divorce (30% have), while Mormons are no different than the national average (24%). Atheists and agnostics are significantly below the norm (21%). |
Oh yes... let's please continue droning on about the 'sanctity of marriage' like the hypocrites you are.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 01:31 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | BTW, I also find this awfully hilarious too:
http://www.barna.org/cgi-bin/home.asp
| Quote: | Nonreligious Americans are less likely to divorce than any other belief group, according to a survey by Christian pollsters. The study, conducted by the Barna Research Group in late 1999, shows that one out of every four American adults has experienced at least one divorce. Among the characteristics that do not seem to be related to divorce are educational achievement, household income, and political ideology. But, to the surprise of the pollsters, Christians are more likely to divorce than unbelievers, and Baptists and born-again Christians experience more divorces than other Christians.
Using statistics drawn from a nationwide survey of nearly 4000 adults, the data show that 27% of born-again Christians are currently or have previously been divorced, compared to 24% among adults who are not born-again. (Because of the large sample size involved, that difference is statistically significant.)
The Christian denomination whose adherents have the highest likelihood of getting divorced are Baptists. Nationally, 29% of all Baptist adults have been divorced. The only Christian group to surpass that level are those associated with non-denominational Protestant churches: 34% of those adults have undergone a divorce. Of the nation's major Christian groups, Catholics and Lutherans have the lowest percentage of divorced individuals (21%). People who attend mainline Protestant churches, overall, experience divorce on par with the national average (25%).
Among non-Christian groups the levels vary. Jews are among those most likely to divorce (30% have), while Mormons are no different than the national average (24%). Atheists and agnostics are significantly below the norm (21%). |
Oh yes... let's please continue droning on about the 'sanctity of marriage' like the hypocrites you are. |
Except for the fact that is says "or previously divorced" and since born again Christians are (by definition) converts, then you have to include the pre-Christian divorces in the other column. Nice try, though.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 01:36 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Phoenix wrote: | | Women got additional rights in the 60's? I thought that was back in the twenties! Silly me! |
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act made it illegal for employers to discriminate against someone because of his or her race or ****. That was in 1964.
Eight years later, Title IX was passed. It states that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of ****, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any educational programs or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
The Equal Pay Act was enacted in '63, the Republicans (  ) came around and heavily sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment in the '60s... I could go on.
You don't know shit, do you?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 01:43 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Women got additional rights in the 60's? I thought that was back in the twenties! Silly me! |
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act made it illegal for employers to discriminate against someone because of his or her race or ****. That was in 1964.
Eight years later, Title IX was passed. It states that "No person in the United States shall, on the basis of ****, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any educational programs or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
The Equal Pay Act was enacted in '63, the Republicans ( ) came around and heavily sponsored the Equal Rights Amendment in the '60s... I could go on.
You don't know shit, do you? |
I didn't know "****" was specified in the Civil Rights Act....but are you now claiming that this is the source for rising divorce rates??? It was the feminist movement nimrod. They actually encouraged "liberation" from marriage and continue to do it today.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 01:55 Post subject:
|
|
|
'Liberation' from marriages woman are trapped in is a bad thing?
Don't bother answering that, btw, I already know you're the 'keep the woman barefoot and in the kitchen' type.
Also, many born-again Christians simply converted from one form of Christianity to another, not from athiesm. Lately, it's been fashionable for Catholics to bail. Gee, guess why.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 01:55 Post subject: Re: Homosexual Marriage (another post about it, yay)
|
|
|
| Silvermouse wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: |
Consider, for just one moment, that for most of the country, this is a question of marriage values and not one of equal rights. If the country truly hated gays as much as so many of you believe, civil unions would not even be a question. You would get nothing. Period. Yet most people are in favor of civil unions because most people are reasonable enough to realize that it is unfair to exclude gays from marriage benefits. Yeah, that sounds like a bunch of bigots to me. |
My point is, it isn't a question of marriage values. That's just the fasade that is used. If marriage values were so sacred, divorce rates wouldn't be what they are. It is an attempt to stop the gay agenda, which isn't so big to me since I dislike agendas to begin with.
But amending the Constitution just so that a rather large group of your country's populace can't get married is lame. I don't want to hear the "under God" argument since many gays are religious (my mother being one of them).
If worse comes to worse, why don't they just make "civil unions" or whatever be the same as marriage as far as taxing and benefits are concerned, but without the name. |
OH...MY...f*****g...GOD! Do you people even read the entirety of the posts you're quoting? Didn't I just say that most people are actually for civil unions? I know I've said that at least 3 times now...at least! In fact, I said it in the exact same post you're quoting.
Nowhere did I ever say anything about 'under God' or 'Constitutional ammendments' or anything else. I'll repeat myself yet again since it still has not sunken in. I said, why not make civil unions federally recognized as being the same as marriages? That doesn't sound like a call for an ammendment to me. At least that's not what it means in plain f*****g English.
And for the record Silvermouse, it IS a question of marriage values to me and apparently to most people. Quoting divorce rates proves nothing. If you're in a relationship and you have problems, do you just scrap the entire thing? If you own something you truly cherish and it stops working, do you just throw it out? No, you don't. You try to fix it. Excuses like, 'look at the divorce rate, marriage doesn't mean anything' is some of the worst logic I've ever heard. It ranks right up there with Jack Crow's 'the recession is Bush's fault' logic.
The problem is that people don't take marriage seriously enough. They don't work to fix their problems. Instead they just scrap the whole damn deal. You're simply suggesting the same thing but on a grander scale. People have problems staying married so let's just change the whole damn tradition.
The equal rights argument is so old and tired, it's pathetic. For once, Phoenix is 100% correct about something. You have equal rights now. Any person can marry anyone of the opposite ****. You're proposing that you have more rights. Hell, I even agree with you. I've said that countless times now. However, the majority should not be asked to redefine it's definition of marriage just to accomodate 2% of the population. That's where the entire idea of civil unions comes about. We all get some extra rights that accomodates that 2% and the majority gets to keep it's values. Seems pretty damn fair to me. No one gets exactly what they want but that's how compromises work.
Three separate times I've trotted that argument out and every g*****n time, you people have come back with the same tired, 'You're a homophobe' argument. Get this through your f*****g skulls. I have my beliefs, you have yours. The only way things work is if we can compromise to get a solution that is acceptable to everyone. I put my hand out to Nah and offer a compromise and all I get back is a bloody stump. In your eyes, it's your way or no way. Anyone that disagrees with you is obviously being prejudiced against gays.
If any of you wants to know exactly why we have problems like this, look in the f*****g mirror. I offer you a compromise and you dig your heels in and demand that I walk the entire distance and redefine my beliefs just for you. It's the exact same reason marriages fail. All of you (and I mean ALL of you) are too g*****n stubborn to meet anyone half way. Like a bunch of pitbulls with a damn bone, you've got your goals and you'll be damned if you'll budge one inch for anyone.
I offered a compromise more than once. Not a single damn one of you that disagrees has offered any compromise. Your argument is that I have to change just because you say so. For you, there can be no compromise. So f**k all of you. I say you don't get shit because you're too g*****n stubborn and closeminded to respect my beliefs. Why should I have any respect for yours?
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 02:00 Post subject:
|
|
|
Ok...so at least now you're admitting that you encourage divorce along with gay marriage. That blows your whole argument about conservatives disregarding the "sanctity of marriage." It's the left trying to destroy it from all side. Here's some more proof.
http://www.now.org/history/purpos66.html
And I doubt there are any statistics on it, but EVERY SINGLE born again Christian I've ever known has gone from an admitted irreligious, faithless "Christian" to a born again. It's not generally a baptist->methodist conversion or anything like that. Most were kind of screwed up before becoming born agains, so it doesn't surprise me that they would have a divorce in their past.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Rycrias
Luke Warm
Joined: 21 Oct 2002
Posts: 269
Location: Indianapolis, IN
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 02:07 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan hit the nail on the head. I couldnt agree more. (golf clap)
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Akronn
Guest
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 03:15 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Phoenix wrote: | | Ok...so at least now you're admitting that you encourage divorce along with gay marriage. That blows your whole argument about conservatives disregarding the "sanctity of marriage." It's the left trying to destroy it from all side. Here's some more proof. |
I actually encourage not getting married at all if you're in the least bit unsure. It's sad, but I know plenty of couples who have recently gotten married or are planning to, and it seems to me that the large unspoken reason is 'because culture tells us to.' Nobody should feel pressured to play house, have kids, etc. if they don't want to, and nobody should 'settle' for just anything.
If you're miserable in your marriage, why wouldn't you get out of it? I've always maintained that marriage is scarcely sacred, I won't pretend. I find it highly humorous that the Christian right, which divorces at a rate at or near the national average of 25%, still pretends it is, though. It's one, giant hypocritical hoot! It isn't treated as sacred, they divorce every bit as freely as us heathens do, so get the hell over it and let gays marry.
Seriously, man. Fix your own problems before you start causing problems for others.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Confused
RealPoor Master of Posts
Joined: 08 Feb 2004
Posts: 6730
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 15:51 Post subject:
|
|
|
| Akronn wrote: | | Phoenix wrote: | | Ok...so at least now you're admitting that you encourage divorce along with gay marriage. That blows your whole argument about conservatives disregarding the "sanctity of marriage." It's the left trying to destroy it from all side. Here's some more proof. |
I actually encourage not getting married at all if you're in the least bit unsure. It's sad, but I know plenty of couples who have recently gotten married or are planning to, and it seems to me that the large unspoken reason is 'because culture tells us to.' Nobody should feel pressured to play house, have kids, etc. if they don't want to, and nobody should 'settle' for just anything.
If you're miserable in your marriage, why wouldn't you get out of it? I've always maintained that marriage is scarcely sacred, I won't pretend. I find it highly humorous that the Christian right, which divorces at a rate at or near the national average of 25%, still pretends it is, though. It's one, giant hypocritical hoot! It isn't treated as sacred, they divorce every bit as freely as us heathens do, so get the hell over it and let gays marry.
Seriously, man. Fix your own problems before you start causing problems for others. |
I agree that people often marry when they shouldn't. I'm actually encouraging a girl I know to divorce her husband because he's a serial adulterer. It's an oversimplification and idealization to discourage marriage if there is the least bit of uncertainty because everyone has uncertainties before getting married. It's the same as discouraging the institution of marriage altogether. You seem to be against working through problems once married, too. It seems that your position is one of abandonment and selfishness. A "what have you done for me lately" attitude.
I'm well aware that Christiandom has its faults. It always has and always will because people are fallable and Christianity is made up of people, but they does not negate the argument. The greater concern here is a loss of familiarity with vice (sin for us catholics). Is it ok to cheat on your wife? Is it ok to have **** with a p********e? Is it ok to steal? Is it ok to kill? People have always done these things and always will. Only now the judicial system is removing our ability as a society to define right and wrong.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Silvermouse
RealPoor Jedi
Joined: 12 Oct 2002
Posts: 11015
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 18:17 Post subject: Re: Homosexual Marriage (another post about it, yay)
|
|
|
| Nuldaan wrote: | | Silvermouse wrote: | | Nuldaan wrote: |
Consider, for just one moment, that for most of the country, this is a question of marriage values and not one of equal rights. If the country truly hated gays as much as so many of you believe, civil unions would not even be a question. You would get nothing. Period. Yet most people are in favor of civil unions because most people are reasonable enough to realize that it is unfair to exclude gays from marriage benefits. Yeah, that sounds like a bunch of bigots to me. |
My point is, it isn't a question of marriage values. That's just the fasade that is used. If marriage values were so sacred, divorce rates wouldn't be what they are. It is an attempt to stop the gay agenda, which isn't so big to me since I dislike agendas to begin with.
But amending the Constitution just so that a rather large group of your country's populace can't get married is lame. I don't want to hear the "under God" argument since many gays are religious (my mother being one of them).
If worse comes to worse, why don't they just make "civil unions" or whatever be the same as marriage as far as taxing and benefits are concerned, but without the name. |
OH...MY...f*****g...GOD! Do you people even read the entirety of the posts you're quoting? Didn't I just say that most people are actually for civil unions? I know I've said that at least 3 times now...at least! In fact, I said it in the exact same post you're quoting.
Nowhere did I ever say anything about 'under God' or 'Constitutional ammendments' or anything else. I'll repeat myself yet again since it still has not sunken in. I said, why not make civil unions federally recognized as being the same as marriages? That doesn't sound like a call for an ammendment to me. At least that's not what it means in plain f*****g English.
And for the record Silvermouse, it IS a question of marriage values to me and apparently to most people. Quoting divorce rates proves nothing. If you're in a relationship and you have problems, do you just scrap the entire thing? If you own something you truly cherish and it stops working, do you just throw it out? No, you don't. You try to fix it. Excuses like, 'look at the divorce rate, marriage doesn't mean anything' is some of the worst logic I've ever heard. It ranks right up there with Jack Crow's 'the recession is Bush's fault' logic.
The problem is that people don't take marriage seriously enough. They don't work to fix their problems. Instead they just scrap the whole damn deal. You're simply suggesting the same thing but on a grander scale. People have problems staying married so let's just change the whole damn tradition.
The equal rights argument is so old and tired, it's pathetic. For once, Phoenix is 100% correct about something. You have equal rights now. Any person can marry anyone of the opposite ****. You're proposing that you have more rights. Hell, I even agree with you. I've said that countless times now. However, the majority should not be asked to redefine it's definition of marriage just to accomodate 2% of the population. That's where the entire idea of civil unions comes about. We all get some extra rights that accomodates that 2% and the majority gets to keep it's values. Seems pretty damn fair to me. No one gets exactly what they want but that's how compromises work.
Three separate times I've trotted that argument out and every g*****n time, you people have come back with the same tired, 'You're a homophobe' argument. Get this through your f*****g skulls. I have my beliefs, you have yours. The only way things work is if we can compromise to get a solution that is acceptable to everyone. I put my hand out to Nah and offer a compromise and all I get back is a bloody stump. In your eyes, it's your way or no way. Anyone that disagrees with you is obviously being prejudiced against gays.
If any of you wants to know exactly why we have problems like this, look in the f*****g mirror. I offer you a compromise and you dig your heels in and demand that I walk the entire distance and redefine my beliefs just for you. It's the exact same reason marriages fail. All of you (and I mean ALL of you) are too g*****n stubborn to meet anyone half way. Like a bunch of pitbulls with a damn bone, you've got your goals and you'll be damned if you'll budge one inch for anyone.
I offered a compromise more than once. Not a single damn one of you that disagrees has offered any compromise. Your argument is that I have to change just because you say so. For you, there can be no compromise. So f**k all of you. I say you don't get shit because you're too g*****n stubborn and closeminded to respect my beliefs. Why should I have any respect for yours? |
You must not be used to my responses, Nuldaan  I usually respond to the person I quote in my first paragraph, then respond to the thread as a whole or add to it in the rest. My response to your quote was about the "question of marriage values". I'll ignore your rant, since you thought I was ignoring your other points.
In conclusion, just hit the middle and make "civil unions" the same as marriage in all respects, just not in name. That includes the government recognizing them. This won't ever happen, of course, because neither side wants to lose.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
Nuldaan
Sir Postalot
Joined: 07 Nov 2002
Posts: 1179
|
|
Posted: 02/28/04 - 20:08 Post subject:
|
|
|
|
Actually, that wasn't entirely directed at you. Admittedly some of it was but as a whole, it was just directed at the people I've had the 'pleasure' of debating with in this and the other gay marriage threads.
|
|
|
Back to top
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 
|
|
