Proposition 8 in California must pass!

[Brennin]

What do you base it on, then?

As I posted previously:

Homoeroticism is irrational, contrary to order, contrary to our telos, and bestial.

Specifically, I base it on what is usually referred to as "natural law."

 

[Brennin]

The whole problem with this argument is that it assumes gay marriage is wrong, nonsensical, etc. It isn't, and the only reason you really give is "Gay marriage shouldn't be allowed because I don't like it." Convincing argument. Unfortunately denying someone their rights simply because you don't like it is a horrible reason to deny someone their rights. What's wrong with homosexual marriages being treated the same as heterosexual marriages?

Actually, the post of mine you cited is based on nothing of the sort. I think private businesses should be able to discriminate against whomever they wish, even if I find their actions deplorable. This is not a communist country, and homosexuals are not entitled to anyone's goods or services. Nor are regular people, for that matter.

 

[Caylin]

(Off topic: Hi Caylin, glad to see you're back! I hope the op went well!)

It went really well! The dr took my stiches out yesterday and was surprised at how well I had healed.

Brennin: Your accomplishments aren't the only thing the decides how much of a failure you are. Your total inability to care about other humans shows you are about on par with some sort of rat or something.

 

[Brennin]

Brennin: Your accomplishments aren't the only thing the decides how much of a failure you are. Your total inability to care about other humans shows you are about on par with some sort of rat or something.

I am not interested in being a sounding board for your sundry issues; take them elsewhere.

 

[Caylin]

Of course. Tell me Brennin, why DON'T you care about glbt people? As far as I can tell you would throw a party if we were all shot into the sun.

 

[Brennin]

Of course. Tell me Brennin, why DON'T you care about glbt people? As far as I can tell you would throw a party if we were all shot into the sun.

I care about some homosexuals, but I certainly do not care for them as a whole.

 

[Caylin]

Again, why not? I've never done anything to you. If you just went off and minded your own business, gay rights wouldn't impact you at all.

 

[Dogbean]

I insist that gay marriage represents the greatest form of legalized child abuse ever written into law, because social experiments in other countries that allow gay marriage have shown that adult children of gay parents suffer from high rates of depression, anxiety and divorce.
Because gay marriage is a child-endangerment issue and not a religious issue, we must gear our efforts towards saving the child from being raised in these families.

Agreed.

 

[Brennin]

I'm perfectly capable of fielding your insults. Unfortunately, when I do this (as happened in a discussion with FloatingAxe on another thread), my posts get removed. Would you care to continue this discussion at atheistforums.com, where the rules of engagement are much laxer?

I am glad to see you are not a pouter. I, too, find the moderation here to be too indulgent of belly-achers, but I do not expect I will join you on atheistforums. I have already been banned from IIDB and I am not interested in a repeat performance. (I will at least check it out, though.)

 

[Brennin]

Again, why not? I've never done anything to you. If you just went off and minded your own business, gay rights wouldn't impact you at all.

You've had a grudge against me ever since I plainly stated my view that people with gender identity disorder belong in psychiatric hospitals. That's the short and tall of it.

 

[Andreusz]

Agreed.

Tackleberry, Holy Roller has given no evidence whatsoever for his assertion, although he has been challenged to do so several times. I believe his assertion is a pernicious lie, akin to the kind of thing Hitler and his cronies used to say about the Jews. I hope you will suspend your agreement until you have seen some evidence.

 

[Dogbean]

Tackleberry, Holy Roller has given no evidence whatsoever for his assertion, although he has been challenged to do so several times. I believe his assertion is a pernicious lie, akin to the kind of thing Hitler and his cronies used to say about the Jews. I hope you will suspend your agreement until you have seen some evidence.

Thank you for stating your request kindly. But with respect, I don't need evidence to have an opinion on an issue.

 

[Andreusz]

Thank you for stating your request kindly. But with respect, I don't need evidence to have an opinion on an issue.

I hope you are never called to jury duty.

 

[Dogbean]

I hope you are never called to jury duty.

Why is that?

I've already served as a member on a court martial; the military equivalant of jury duty. I helped punish someone for having child pornography.

 

[Andreusz]

Why is that?

I've already served as a member on a court martial; the military equivalant of jury duty. I helped punish someone for having child pornography.

Did you ignore the evidence presented in the case, and just go with your opinion? Or are you inconsistent int his respect?

 

[dies-l]

Thank you for stating your request kindly. But with respect, I don't need evidence to have an opinion on an issue.

On what grounds do you base your opinions then?

 

[pgp_protector]

On what grounds do you base your opinions then?

Well if there not basing it on Evidence, I'd have to guess "Feelings", nothing more than Feelings.

 

[D.W.Washburn]

My opinion is the informed one.

I will return to this.

I, for example, would not make the gaff you made below:

I make many mistakes. It is one of the reasons that I go to church each week and confess my sinfulness. However, I asked:

So, is it a legitimate use of the commerce clause for a privately owned restaurant to deny service to persons of African descent?

To which you replied:

The commerce clause is abused by those who forced businesses to accept customers they do not want to serve.

Which I take to mean, "No, that is the other side of the coin. While it is abuse of the commerce clause to force a restaurant to serve persons of African descent, it is not a legitimate use of the commerce clause to deny such a person service."

That is perfectly acceptable.

I want to be clear about this. You seem to be saying that it is perfectly acceptable to discriminate against individuals based on their domestic arrangements. Is that what you are saying?

Even if that's true, I don't care.

Returning to your first point, how does your stated apathy toward the truth correlate with having an informed opinion?

 

[The Madcap]

Actually, the post of mine you cited is based on nothing of the sort.

Yes it is.

I think private businesses should be able to discriminate against whomever they wish, even if I find their actions deplorable.

Well then fine, but that does not give good reason to deny someone their rights. You're just denying someone their rights because you don't like them. If homosexuals are married, that's just as valid a marriage as a heterosexual marriage. And that shouldn't be changed because some people have their own little semantic definition of marriage. That's the equivalent of saying "I don't hire blacks because I only hire human beings". Apparently the guy saying this has some semantically ****ed up view on what a human being is. If the guy doesn't want to hire a black guy, then so be it, but making a ban on considering the black guy a human being is simply wrong. This is no different. You have made up your own little idea of what marriage is, so somehow this lets you call homosexuals morally reprehensible, even though they aren't. Even if you are forced to recognize their marriage...well, that's because they're MARRIED. If you don't agree with it, then you're wrong. If you don't like that they're married, that's another thing. There are people I don't think should be married (because of actual good reasons, like the guy is a **** or the woman cheats all the time), but I'm not going to say they aren't married because that's a false statement. There is no reason why a homosexual marriage is any less valid than a heterosexual marriage.

This is not a communist country, and homosexuals are not entitled to anyone's goods or services. Nor are regular people, for that matter.

Okay...but we're talking about people's rights here. Homosexuals are entitled to just as many rights as heterosexuals.

 

[BigBadWlf]

Thank you for stating your request kindly. But with respect, I don't need evidence to have an opinion on an issue.

"The fewer the facts, the stronger the opinion."
Arnold H. Glasow