Yes you do
No it wasn't, but if so then you really shouldn't have posted that "figure of speech". BTW the Pyramids were built by aliens.
I don't need to back this up, it's just a figure of speech.
-
Welcome to Smogon! Take a moment to read the Introduction to Smogon for a run-down on everything Smogon, and make sure you take some time to read the global rules.
-
Congrats to the winners of the 2023 Smog Awards!
Prop 8: Great riddance, or GREATEST riddance?
- Thread starter cim
- Start date
I don't need to back this up, it's just a figure of speech.
No, I'm not assuming that at all. You argued that being raised my gay parents make you more likely to be a criminal. I was saying that we know that's not true due to statistics that have been collated from the existing same-sex couples raising kids (through either single parents or familial splits awarded custody who subsequently enter samesex relationships, or by adoption)
I don't even know what you're talking about here.
Yes, and the statistics suggest that strict religious upbringing gives you more potential, and being raised by gay parents makes it slightly less potential.
Unfortunately, I can't find the source that I read it in (it was citing an American statistics bureau, but the document itself was an online news article showing the statistics of murderers that are raised by gay parents, which showed that there is actually a slightly lower chance of growing up to be a murderer if you are raised by gay parents).
Once again Deck has fun rambling on saying the same things a million times in a row. Forthright plox? In any case, I think we should focus more on the fact that there are no good reasons against gay marriage. First of all, as shown repeatedly be people a gay upbringing isn't bad for a child, and is WAYYYY better than being an orphan. Obviously religious reasons fall under the bigotry category most of the time, and most other things are small and relatively unimportant. Why shouldn't it be legalized is the question here.
mattj
blatant Nintendo fanboy
Don't want to derail the thread, but is disagreeing with Homosexuality on Biblical grounds, while not being hateful, or pursuing legal action against homosexuals bigotry?
Most of the time Matt, but really disagreeing with it doesn't matter, as no where in the bible does it say that you have to prevent people from doing so. So in no way are we hurting any people's religious practices. No it isn't really bigotry if you don't care and act out against it but then logically you are pro marriage. So it is a completely useless argument in this thread. Anyway like last time you ignored the important detail (last time you ignored devout and catholic, this time you ignored most of the time)
As homosexuality really isn't a choice nor is it really fair to tell them they can't practice their sexual urges, even for Biblical reasons being against it I couldn't say you were bigoted but rather still "ignorant" regardless of what your religion dictates.
As for being against any legal measures in protection of homosexuals and civil rights, I don't think there is a Biblical reason to actively try and prevent people from committing sins that really would only hurt themselves.
As for being against any legal measures in protection of homosexuals and civil rights, I don't think there is a Biblical reason to actively try and prevent people from committing sins that really would only hurt themselves.
Replace "homosexuality" and "homosexuals" with "being a woman" and "women" in that sentence. You should be able to answer your own question.
Thats because your so arrogant to realise, that religion does not dictate your life. If religion was the law, you couldnt do everything you wanted. Religion isnt the reason why murder is banned, its against human rights. Its against human rights to neglect a child, whether indirectly or directly. It is against human rights due to bullying thats simple. Just because alot of people on smogon, think gay people are all right doesnt mean everyone does. Note I have nothing against gay people, except for their want for marriage. Also what is stopping them from fullfilling their sexual desires, they are already breaking religion by being gay in the first place. Surely marriage doesnt mean important to them
But it isn't a human right to deny people gay marriage.
You are severely underestimating the importance of marriage. Being gay isn't solely about having sex with a guy - it's the same as a straight person's desire to marry a woman. If two gay people want to marry each other, then you really don't have the right to oppose it, especially when the grounds are "it's against religion" and "i don't like gays".
"You're too arrogant to realise that what you're doing is an affront to my personal beliefs and my personal beliefs are more important than yours so you shouldn't be able to get married because you're gay and god hates (BAN ME PLEASE)."
I imagine you won't understand the irony here, but the rest of the thread probably will.
What I found funny about this entire debacle from the first place, is that the entire Prop 8 campaign was funded by the Mormon Church.
Seriously? Nobody at least raised an eyebrow at that?
Separation of church and state is in the Constitution...
Didn't this thing go against the Constitution to begin with?
Marriage provides certain rights that being a Domestic Partner don't btw, in case Prop 8 supporters didn't know this.
Also, @ Sy123, be prepared to go through a massive shit-storm. I predict that the next 2 pages of this thread will probably be filled with anger towards you from people you have hurt with your comments.
Seriously? Nobody at least raised an eyebrow at that?
Separation of church and state is in the Constitution...
Didn't this thing go against the Constitution to begin with?
Marriage provides certain rights that being a Domestic Partner don't btw, in case Prop 8 supporters didn't know this.
Also, @ Sy123, be prepared to go through a massive shit-storm. I predict that the next 2 pages of this thread will probably be filled with anger towards you from people you have hurt with your comments.
Not the entire campaign. And, uh, yeah people did notice, that's why you know about it.
Oh, it's that simple. Good thing we all figured it out now. Thanks for pointing that out.
Some campaigns for the ballot measure were funded indirectly by the Church, but not the actual measure. We also have freedom of speech to worry about which allows this kind of thing.
-----------------
Go fuck yourself.Sy123 said:
There's a class of people in the world that love each other. They want to spend the rest of their lives together, raising a family with each other and getting basic rights like power of attorney and visiting each other in the hospital. But assholes like you are the reason they can't have that. Why? Because people like you exist that think incoherent, stereotyped, and flat out untrue thoughts like that gays don't actually want to get married, or that if they did they would only want to do that to have sex. The strong implication that sex is all gay people stand for, and that they couldn't possibly want everything else they've been arguing about for decades, is both bigoted and disgusting.
So what if the Gays aren't religious at all? How could they be breaking a religion they don't even follow? You also clearly have a lot more against gays then just them marrying since your just implying that they are somehow less deserving of marriage or other stuff then people who aren't gay. Seriously, get that through your god damn head you dumbass and mabye people won't hate you so much.
You're right, surely marriage isn't important to them.
All those gays you see on the news fighting to be allowed to be married are totally fake!
Listen, I have no problem if Churches won't allow gay people to get married as it would be against SoCaS to force them to do so. But the problem is that marriage also has a lot of secular benefits and purpose, such as possession rights, tax deductions, etc. Not even a civil union has the same powers and privileges that marriage does.
What needs to happen is that marriage through the church is no longer recognized and that the government allows for application of marriage only through say the courthouse or other government facilities. This should keep the religious people happy, as gays aren't being forced to be married in your churches while secularly married homosexual couples are granted the same legal rights and privileges as heterosexual married couples.
Because honestly, as of now gays are being treated as "separate but equal" under the Federal Government.
First, understand that I'm responding to mattj's comment and you seem to have missed the point of my post. He said that people could oppose anything about homosexuals for purely religious reasons, and I responded by that his religion should have no place in my life (though dictate is a strong word, his religion does have a say of what I can or cannot do because of the political process).
Eyebrows were raised, but there's nothing much to do about it. I would love to see a law that limits religious influence on politics, but people will accuse such law of infringing on their first amendment rights.
Some do, but they're lying through their teeth about it. Clearly there are hundreds of federal benefits that gay couples in MA, IA, CT, VT, DC, and NH do not get, but most of the campaign for Prop 8 was lies anyways. See its commercials and you'll see that one of its main tactics was to arouse unfounded fear in voters. Both Schwarzenegger and Brown said that if gay marriage would not force elementary school students to learn about it, but the Prop 8 supporters continuously claimed that it would.
It's one thing to disagree with religion, another thing to bash it especially with ridiculous arguments like these.
1. Not all catholic priests molest little boys.
2. The Church of Latter Day Saints no longer support polygamy (although I hardly can see how a secular person would think polygamy is wrong)
3. Jewish people being hated by anti-semantics is hardly the fault of their religion.
You can't be a bigot yourself and make an argument against it.
I know I agree with these statements and It seems my point has been misunderstood. I myself am jewish and i have no problem with Religion in general. what I am trying to say is that Religions in general have their faults, and it is irresponsible to ignore those faults while acting as if people that follow it are superior.
Um...what is stopping Congress from simply making a "Domestic Partnership"="Marriage" in terms of rights, and calling what we currently call "Marriage" by the State a "Domestic Partnership"? Marriage has been a religious word for quite some time, is there any particular reason people who hate religion in general want to take it? Let religions have their word and basically no one will oppose this, I fail to see the difference between a Domestic Partnership and a Marriage if they give equal rights, except that a certain class of people want to believe they are different because they are "married" rather than "domestic partners".
If someone can point out the problem with that please do so, but it seems to me that would clear up what stupid debate there is over this easily. Sure there will always be bigots who just hate gay people, most of whom are religious, but there is nothing we can do to stop that, so why bother trying to upset them when a whole other class of people who are not bigots and have nothing against gays just want to retain their tradition? Just let gays be Domestic Partners with the same full legal rights as anyone else, same as anyone else joined by the State. The only reason it was called Marriage by the State in the first place was because almost all of the Founding Fathers were Christians, now that most people in Government couldn't give two shits what any religion thinks apart from what it means for them voting-wise, I really don't see why the State just doesn't move on as a whole and stop upsetting people for no good reason.
If someone can point out the problem with that please do so, but it seems to me that would clear up what stupid debate there is over this easily. Sure there will always be bigots who just hate gay people, most of whom are religious, but there is nothing we can do to stop that, so why bother trying to upset them when a whole other class of people who are not bigots and have nothing against gays just want to retain their tradition? Just let gays be Domestic Partners with the same full legal rights as anyone else, same as anyone else joined by the State. The only reason it was called Marriage by the State in the first place was because almost all of the Founding Fathers were Christians, now that most people in Government couldn't give two shits what any religion thinks apart from what it means for them voting-wise, I really don't see why the State just doesn't move on as a whole and stop upsetting people for no good reason.
And according to Brown v. Board of Education, "separate is inherently unequal."
gg
That's the very solution I have been proposing.
Honestly there would be no problem with that at all.
I certainly didn't get that implication from your previous posts.
Also, on a side note, why is it OK to make fun of Catholic priests for something that a clear minority of them do (I merely say a "clear minority" because I don't want to get into a numbers argument) and say stereotypical things that are insulting to a certain class of people, when saying the same things about other people is "wrong" or "racist" or "evil"? I totally agree with people who denounce stereotypes by the way-I just wish those same people would stop being hypocrites when they take potshots at "religious people" or "Catholic priests" and what not. Wouldn't it be nice if people could move beyond things like that?
Either way, this turns gets rid of the entire religious issue with gay marriage and give homosexuals the equality they deserve. On a social level people can still call it marriage if they want (which it really is) yet in the law it is called a "domestic partnership" for both homosexual and hetereosexual couples.
While I actually support that move, there are a couple of problems with it.
1) Separate is inherently unequal; what this means is that in order to actually make a valid domestic union relationship, you'd need to actually abolish the current relationship of marriage (i.e. so everything that was a marriage is now a domestic union). This would be hard to get the civilian masses on board with.
2) Following on from the above: you can't retroactively remove the marriage that people already have. Even if you could, creating a new relationship and abolishing the recognition of marriage would create a mass of administration costs of people needing to reregister their marriage.
3) Marriage is actually not a religious term inherently; the legal definition exists without the religious connotations (consider: multiple religions have slightly different versions of marriage, hence there's no religious holistic definition). There are arguments that the religious lobby should not be able to castigate the term for themselves and deny it to the general populace.
1) Separate is inherently unequal; what this means is that in order to actually make a valid domestic union relationship, you'd need to actually abolish the current relationship of marriage (i.e. so everything that was a marriage is now a domestic union). This would be hard to get the civilian masses on board with.
2) Following on from the above: you can't retroactively remove the marriage that people already have. Even if you could, creating a new relationship and abolishing the recognition of marriage would create a mass of administration costs of people needing to reregister their marriage.
3) Marriage is actually not a religious term inherently; the legal definition exists without the religious connotations (consider: multiple religions have slightly different versions of marriage, hence there's no religious holistic definition). There are arguments that the religious lobby should not be able to castigate the term for themselves and deny it to the general populace.
About separate being inherently unequal, I ask for a definition of equal. You cannot simply say that equal means the same, because that would technically make equal treatment of people wrong, for no two people are the same, therefore no two people would be equal by that definition of equal, therefore no two people would be deserving of equal treatment. So, what definition of equal do you use?