Cynthia Posted November 7, 2008 Share Posted November 7, 2008 Late post, however I wasn't here for a while. but the moment you come in and tell me I have to change my views, views that have been shaped by hundreds of thousands of years of mankind, I will fight you. I don't recall saying that. Not to mention that's hypocritical as you expect us to accept your views, otherwise you wouldn't even debate about it. Also, I NEVER told you to change your religion, I simply said, why should we take ONLY yours into consideration? We should be fair and take them ALL into consideration. Also, last I checked this country belonged the the Native Americans, who were all Pagan, so if you want to pose the argument of Christianity being here first, it really wasn't. As said before, the reason things like murder, rape, and such are illegal is not because of religious morals, but because society can not function with them legal. Also I noticed you said you do not care what our views are, only your own. So our views have no value, and we should base the country off of what people like you think? I'm sorry, but I was a little disappointed in you when I read that entire post, and how much ignorance it contained. You always claim to have experience, and be knowledgeable yet you say that our views don't matter, and yours is right, without any kind of compromise on it. That isn't democracy. Ironically you don't want us to say your views are wrong, but say you don't care about ours, and try to convince us to change them, as otherwise you wouldn't debate about it, that in itself is hypocritical. Separate but equal does not work, it's been proven. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandmanccl Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Separate but not equal was due to the fact that society was segregated. This would not be the case. You wouldn't have gay-only schools. You wouldn't have straight-only residential areas. You wouldn't have to sit on the back of a public bus just because you were gay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Separate but not equal was due to the fact that society was segregated. This would not be the case. You wouldn't have gay-only schools. You wouldn't have straight-only residential areas. You wouldn't have to sit on the back of a public bus just because you were gay. Yet if you want to get married you need to call it something else, thus separating you from the rest, and encouraging others to separate you as well. Sorry, I don't think it would work, and I'm kind of glad we have a democratic president now, and that congress is fairly supportive of him. I for one fully support gay marriage, and them being allowed to marry in any form they choose. It's not physically hurting you. You're not going to cry yourself to sleep over it. It's not demeaning of Marriage. Michael Jackson got married, and he's three times an accused pedophile. So have many other sex offenders, so have murderers. How are none of them demeaning of marriage, but two people who love each other, but happen to be the same gender are? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YokaiKnight Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 (edited) Sorry, I don't think it would work, and I'm kind of glad we have a democratic president now, and that congress is fairly supportive of him.Obama isn't likely to change much about gay marriage--in fact, he opposes change at the federal level:Obama voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment which would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman, but has said he personally believes that marriage is defined as a religious bond between a man and a woman. He supports civil unions that would carry equal legal standing to that of marriage for same-sex couples, but believes that decisions about the title of marriage should be left to the states.[216][217][218] He has called for the repeal of the federal Defense of Marriage Act.[219] Edited November 9, 2008 by YokaiKnight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted November 9, 2008 Share Posted November 9, 2008 Obama isn't likely to change much about gay marriage--in fact, he opposes change at the federal level: I said democratic, and a lot more people on the democratic party support it than on the republican party. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YokaiKnight Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Yes, but "and I'm kind of glad we have a democratic president now" implies that you expect increased support of gay marriage because a democrat is president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Yes, but "and I'm kind of glad we have a democratic president now" implies that you expect increased support of gay marriage because a democrat is president. No, that means that implies the support for the democratic party is going up. Sorry if you misinterpreted it as that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandmanccl Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Michael Jackson got married, and he's three times an accused pedophile. So have many other sex offenders, so have murderers. How are none of them demeaning of marriage, but two people who love each other, but happen to be the same gender are? I never said they weren't. I burn on those who commit deviant sexual acts in general. The Democratic party has always had more registered voters than the Republican party. Support didn't "go up" so much as more people than ever got out to go vote at the polls, which inherently implies that a higher percentages of voters were of the Democratic party. Anyway, just go re-read what YokaiKnight posted about Obama that he got from Wikipedia. It's more elequent than I am and pretty much says the same thing. It's an opinion I share with our president elect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cynthia Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I never said they weren't. I burn on those who commit deviant sexual acts in general.The Democratic party has always had more registered voters than the Republican party. Support didn't "go up" so much as more people than ever got out to go vote at the polls, which inherently implies that a higher percentages of voters were of the Democratic party. Anyway, just go re-read what YokaiKnight posted about Obama that he got from Wikipedia. It's more elequent than I am and pretty much says the same thing. It's an opinion I share with our president elect. When did Wikipedia become a reliable source? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wist Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Sandmancci meant that he's agreeing with the statement. In this particular case I don't think matters so much if it accurately represents Obama's position. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fox Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 When did Wikipedia become a reliable source? That's a rather small opinion. Wikipedia may not be the best for in-depth information, but it's an excellent source for general overviews. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YokaiKnight Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 (edited) When did Wikipedia become a reliable source? There are four different references in the section I quoted, and over 250 in the whole article. Attacking Wikipedia for inaccuracy is just lazy and frequently wrong. Show that they've cited unreliable sources (or no sources), before you jump the gun. Edited November 11, 2008 by YokaiKnight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.