[Flipside]

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040515/ap_on_re_us/gay_marriage_courts&cid=519&ncid=716

Quail and Tremble Homophobics! For the Gays are on their way to equal rights, just like the Blacks, The American Indians and all other 'non-normals' that have had to fight people like you for them!

You see, this is what people don'r understand, in places like America and the UK, we have quiet coups, where we just start refusing to do what our leader wants in such as way as he can do nothing about it

[SadisticSid]

Can we clear up something here? This is not about 'equal rights'. Everyone has the right to marry, providing you marry a woman if you're a man and vice versa. This is a new right to marry people of the same sex.

[Flipside]

I don't agree, it IS about the right for two people who are in love to make a symbolic union of that love.

To say homosexuality and homosexual love is somehow something 'different' from 'normal' love is a lie.

So, what is Marraige about in the Eyes of the Church and the People then? Is it a celebration of Love or of Heterosexuality?

It IS about equal rights! EXACTLY that.

[IceFire]

On the flipside there are plenty of men and women who are "life partners" and never marry these days too...times be a changing.

[Flipside]

I agree with you there, I'm perfectly happy with a 'commonlaw' marriage (If 2 people live together for more than 7 years they are considered married under common law in the UK).

But I am glad that the courts are aware of their duty, not only to the withdrawn conservative elements of America, but to ALL American people. Whether people like it or not, the courts just risked unpopularity with the Senate to buy you all back a little piece of the freedom your country was based on.

[an0n]

I stand by my '....AIDS is the cure' biggotry.

[Rictor]

Originally posted by SadisticSid
Can we clear up something here? This is not about 'equal rights'. Everyone has the right to marry, providing you marry a woman if you're a man and vice versa. This is a new right to marry people of the same sex.

Thats just using petty semantics "prove" your arguement. I call bull****. It is, as always, the intent of the word, not the literal dictionary meaning. This is just the latest crap that certain conservatives have cooked up in an ever more desperate bid to get some sort of legitimacy for their case.

Seriously, 50 years from now, people who opposed gay marriage will be viewed the same way that people who supported segregation are today.

What happened to the conservative ideal of small government? Or is that only when it suits your needs?

[an0n]

Just because it's contributing the downfall of society doesn't make it right.

We can be very proud of ourselves for letting blacks and women vote, for not beating our kids, for not killing criminals, for sending rapists to therapy rather than prison, for helping paedophiles recover rather than lynching them.......

Tollerance is only a good thing up to the point where it starts becoming detrimental to mankind.

[IceFire]

Flipside: Oh its not my country...we had this whole gay marriage thing start up months before the Americans did.  Some areas legalized it and the Americans heard about it and copied us...wait till we pass the new drug possession laws

Dare I trudge down the slippery slope but how is this detrimental to mankind?  Unless you're talking about procreation/population stuff...

[an0n]

In itself, it's not. But it's a symptom of a much bigger problem.

They just keep deciding that one thing's okay, then if that thing's okay why isn't this other thing?

Murder, violence and heterosexuality have made mankind into what it is today. It's not great, but at least we're not all dead. If they keep touting this stupid philosophy that tollerance is better than violence then sooner or later someone is going to come along and kick our peace-loving asses.

I mean, look at blacks voting. They got their asses conquered. They were so weak and backwards that white people kicked their ****ing asses and enslaved them. And not one generation later their kids are allowed to decide the fate of the entire country.

They were enslaved because their genetics and their beliefs were inferior, and now they get to decide what the government does.

[an0n]

And since when were you an admin?

[Flaser]

Originally posted by an0n
In itself, it's not. But it's a symptom of a much bigger problem.

They just keep deciding that one thing's okay, then if that thing's okay why isn't this other thing?

Murder, violence and heterosexuality have made mankind into what it is today. It's not great, but at least we're not all dead. If they keep touting this stupid philosophy that tollerance is better than violence then sooner or later someone is going to come along and kick our peace-loving asses.

I mean, look at blacks voting. They got their asses conquered. They were so weak and backwards that white people kicked their ****ing asses and enslaved them. And not one generation later their kids are allowed to decide the fate of the entire country.

They were enslaved because their genetics and their beliefs were inferior, and now they get to decide what the government does.

Some of the great generals in history were gay - so were scientists philosophers, poets ect. ect.

I'm not one to support homosexuality, but you better lay off you daily dose of Maddox an0n or you'll blind yourself with that selfrightsous attitude.

[Rictor]

anon: the world did not get this "good" because of white, male, Christians waging bloody war and conquering the peoples of far away lands, as you would like me to believe. It got this "good" despite that.

Intolerance to race, religion, sex, age, gender, nationality or anythng along those line is detremental to the welfare of mankind. Most people can live quite peacefully with gays and Blacks and athiests, and if certain people find that threatening, tough ****.

In the end, lasting peace can not be had at the end of sword or the barrel of a gun. People have to want it, and they're not going to want it if they are oppressed.

[Singh]

Originally posted by an0n
In itself, it's not. But it's a symptom of a much bigger problem.

They just keep deciding that one thing's okay, then if that thing's okay why isn't this other thing?

Murder, violence and heterosexuality have made mankind into what it is today. It's not great, but at least we're not all dead. If they keep touting this stupid philosophy that tollerance is better than violence then sooner or later someone is going to come along and kick our peace-loving asses.

I mean, look at blacks voting. They got their asses conquered. They were so weak and backwards that white people kicked their ****ing asses and enslaved them. And not one generation later their kids are allowed to decide the fate of the entire country.

They were enslaved because their genetics and their beliefs were inferior, and now they get to decide what the government does.

This is strangely right (on a very, very basic scale) and yet so strangely wrong....it just scares me O_o
*hides from an0n

[Rictor]

It a pretty safe bet than anyone who advocates oppression has never been oppressed himself. This is a human constant, way back through history.

Thats why certain people can get all preachy about this or that, cause they've never been on the other end of the stick.

[SadisticSid]

Originally posted by Flipside
I don't agree, it IS about the right for two people who are in love to make a symbolic union of that love.

To say homosexuality and homosexual love is somehow something 'different' from 'normal' love is a lie.

So, what is Marraige about in the Eyes of the Church and the People then? Is it a celebration of Love or of Heterosexuality?

It IS about equal rights! EXACTLY that.

Originally posted by Rictor
Thats just using petty semantics "prove" your arguement. I call bull****. It is, as always, the intent of the word, not the literal dictionary meaning. This is just the latest crap that certain conservatives have cooked up in an ever more desperate bid to get some sort of legitimacy for their case.

Seriously, 50 years from now, people who opposed gay marriage will be viewed the same way that people who supported segregation are today.

What happened to the conservative ideal of small government? Or is that only when it suits your needs?

Huh? I am not against gay marriage, but I see it as a non-issue. We have civil unions over here, for instance, and the US is heading in that direction too. But the gay rights wing won't stop at that until they can call it marriage, despite a completely equal measure of rights and privileges that both afford.

Then there is the issue of use of this right. Take any realistic cross-section of gays and the percentage of them who would marry is very small indeed, owing to the nature of gay relationships being short-term in the majority of cases. I'm not denying the existence of long-term couples; I hope I'm part of one myself some day. But look at reality instead of this false belief that the only difference between straights and gays is who they take to bed with them.

And if gay marriage is allowed, what about polygamy as well? I don't even condemn that - it doesn't hurt anyone, after all - but how tiny a percentage of people would realistically make use of it? Like I said, a non-issue

[karajorma]

Sid does make an interesting point in a roundabout way. I've always been fine with the idea of gay marriage but if you're allowing that but what do you do about anyone who wants an officially sanctified polygomous relationship?

[Flipside]

Well, in a Utopian society, as long as everyone involved said Yes, that wouldn't be a problem.

However, this is not a Utopina society, jelousy and mistrust would follow on as automatically for that as it would for Gays and did for many other persecuted groups over the years. Also, the very real risk of STDs IS present in polygomous relationships, to a far far greater degree than people percieve for Gays.

[HotSnoJ]

Oh crap they're at it again.


/me parks Lucifer above thread.
/me fires the beams.


DIE THREAD, DIE!!!!

[Flipside]

Uncomfortable HotSnoJ?