Cal Supreme Court Say YAY to Gay Marriage

Users who are viewing this thread

TheOriginalJames

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,395
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I'm sorry but marriage lost its definition/meaning a long time ago.


So they aren't effects anything. Marriage used to be until death do us part. Nowadays the people divorce like it's no big deal, people jump into marriage without really truly knowing the individual they supposably love. To me marriage isn't anything but just a legality issue. If you love someone, I mean truly love someone, why do you need a paper saying so? As proof? LOL

Um... they're were divorces before 'nowadays' too. You think Hollywood actors just suddenly started getting together and divorcing within the past 15 years?!
 
  • 114
    Replies
  • 2K
    Views
  • 0
    Participant count
    Participants list

Peter Parka

Well-Known Member
Messages
42,387
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.06z
Who the hell cares what they call it? Grace, just because two members of the same sex can be married, does that de-value your marriage to your husband in any way? Does it affect you in any way? I seriously cant understand why anyone could have a problem with this.
 

Maulds

Accidental Bastard
Messages
10,330
Reaction score
3
Tokenz
0.01z
My problem isn't so much the legalization and state recognition of gay marriage, but the way it came about. I think the judges over-stepped their boundaries.
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
It's people like you where the country won't accept change. Marriage is marriage, and it should be allowed for everyone no matter what they're sexual orientation is. Everyone deserves happiness. Just because the bible says it isn't right doesn't mean it's true. Hell we would stlil have slaves in this country if it was up to people like you reading the bible.
I am very much for change. It is what my whole life is dedicated to.
I agree that marriage is marriage and that is why it should not be allowed.
I have no problem with homosexuals being allowed to be joined in civil unions that afford them the same legal rights as marriage. But to call it marriage, yes I disagree with it.

As far as you stating that we would still have slaves is a mute point. Just because a history book discusses slavery or the culture at the time does not mean that it was approved of. Oppression is something the Bible is against; not for.

GuessAngel, your posts toward me are consistently hostile in nature. Let me just say that I am truly sorry if I have done something to offend you personally. That is certainly never been my intention. I understand that you do not believe in God's Word. As you know, I however do. I'm sorry that you seem to feel the need to take so much issue with me over that point and can't get past it to get to know me as a person. I think that you'd like me if you did.

I would however appreciate it if you would not bother posting in response to me if you cannot control your hostile mannerisms since I am not able to put you on ignore since you are labeled as staff.
 

GuesSAngel

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,434
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I am very much for change. It is what my whole life is dedicated to.
I agree that marriage is marriage and that is why it should not be allowed.
I have no problem with homosexuals being allowed to be joined in civil unions that afford them the same legal rights as marriage. But to call it marriage, yes I disagree with it.

this just shows me that you're not really for change if you can't accept the term 'marriage' for others.

As far as you stating that we would still have slaves is a mute point. Just because a history book discusses slavery or the culture at the time does not mean that it was approved of. Oppression is something the Bible is against; not for.

I thought the bible was the word of god, and that it was all correct. Well seeing that the bible is basically a history book and there were slaves in that book, i guess it's okay then?

GuessAngel, your posts toward me are consistently hostile in nature. Let me just say that I am truly sorry if I have done something to offend you personally. That is certainly never been my intention. I understand that you do not believe in God's Word. As you know, I however do. I'm sorry that you seem to feel the need to take so much issue with me over that point and can't get past it to get to know me as a person. I think that you'd like me if you did.

my posts towards you are not consistent. I just really can't understand how you can be so closed minded. I don't have any issues with you.

I would however appreciate it if you would not bother posting in response to me if you cannot control your hostile mannerisms since I am not able to put you on ignore since you are labeled as staff.

it's the freedom of every member to share their views of everything. If you can't handle the philosophy and debate section, then don't post in it yourself.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Although it's not my lifestyle, I have no problem with gay's being able to commit to one another. If the word "marriage" is a problem, then call it a "civil union." There is absolutely no threat to the hetro-sexual life style by allowing gay marriages.
 

GraceAbounds

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,998
Reaction score
2
Tokenz
0.00z
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've been busy.
my posts towards you are not consistent. I just really can't understand how you can be so closed minded. I don't have any issues with you.
Your posts are consistently hostile in nature toward me. I've seen you post quite rudely to other members as well and seeing that you are staff, your posting style is really quite unacceptable and immature for someone that is suppose to uphold a higher standard.

So, whether you realize it or not, when you say things like:
It's people like you
people like you reading the bible.
it is accusing and hostile. You are attacking the person instead of the issue.

it's the freedom of every member to share their views of everything. If you can't handle the philosophy and debate section, then don't post in it yourself.
I absolutely agree with you & that freedom should be afforded to me as well without being attacked by a staff member or any other member of this board. I am not attacking anyone for disagreeing with my views; you however are and it is wrong.
 

TheOriginalJames

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,395
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
I think some of you people have a twisted idea of debate and what "attacking" someone is. Either you need to understand the nature of political debate or just stop allowiing it. I can't see how what she said is in any way "attacking" you. And if we are going to start judging "hostile" that's such a moving target that you could accuse just about anyone of being hostile. People sayng "stop reading Fox News" for example could easily be interpreted as hostile.

Is this a political debate forum or is it Romper Room. I think there are places where its fair to keep it light, but there is a "Nazi" element in this forum that seems to want debate their way rather than the right way. A person's opinion needs to be attacked to be exposed for its flaws. For example, if I say "your ignorance on economics precludes you from making an intelligent analysis of the subject or presenting an intelligent reply" -- that's not an attack and its not an insult--its a statement of perceived fact. If I say "you're an idiot" -- that's an attack.

Separate name calling from attacking the foundations of an argument and from debating vigorously--any vigorous debate is going to be by definition a hostile debate. If you don't want hostility, don't debate.

Telling someone they're ignorant on the subject based off one or two posts in a debate is nothing more than an attack on that person. Whether or not it's a third person roundabout way of saying it or not doesn't negate the fact that you're throwing a judgment at someone based on your perception. That isn't a fact, telling someone they're ignorant is an opinion.

Now if you leave the "your ignorance..." portion out of the statement, then yes, it's a debate.

Whats more is that if you leave that entire sentence you have provided as an example outside of the thread, and continue debating the topic rather than giving a perception based opinion, you keep it completely on topic and thus run absolutely no risk of making a perceived attack on someone.
 

Minor Axis

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,294
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.02z
Is this a political debate forum or is it Romper Room. I think there are places where its fair to keep it light, but there is a "Nazi" element in this forum that seems to want debate their way rather than the right way.

Saying there is a "Nazi" element is judgemental and unnecessary.

A person's opinion needs to be attacked to be exposed for its flaws. For example, if I say "your ignorance on economics precludes you from making an intelligent analysis of the subject or presenting an intelligent reply" -- that's not an attack and its not an insult--its a statement of perceived fact. If I say "you're an idiot" -- that's an attack.

Calling someone "ignorant" is a personal attack. That entire sentence is inflammatory and insulting whether you think so or not. That kind of language is not necessary to make a point, only to throw insults and raise the level of anger existing in the thread.
 

AUDRAA

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,404
Reaction score
35
Tokenz
261.08z
calling someone ignorant directly is an attack, but saying "your ignorance on the topic" is not. Thats two completly different things.
Now can we please get back on the original topic at hand and stop debating this statement?
 

TheOriginalJames

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,395
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
And you are stating nothing more than an opinion what an "attack" is. The word itself has a variety of different meanings. "Ignorant" is a compeltely misunderstood word. Everyone is the world is ignorant about something. Ignorance on a topic makes an opinion on the topic useless.



No--then its a discussion. There is a HUGE difference between discussion and debate. Debate should not be hampered and restricted by people's perceptions of hostility. I can insult you without ever calling you a name.



An "perceived" is the key isn't it? Again, I saw nothing wrong whatsoever with the phrase "people like you" -- its simply a qualifier, yet another member thinks its hostile.

The point I was trying to make is that making statements with the words such as 'ignorant' is nothing more than like saying 'you're a fucking moron'. People are going to see that as an attack. Unless of course you can show me exactly how calling someone ignorant on a topic is pertinent to the topic at hand in the first place.

Edit: Besides, is it REALLY necessary to point out that someone is 'ignorant' of a topic at hand? With that very general 'non offensive' statement, you've strayed from the topic... just like we have done with this little discussion about debating.
 

GuesSAngel

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,434
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Sorry it took me so long to respond. I've been busy.

Your posts are consistently hostile in nature toward me. I've seen you post quite rudely to other members as well and seeing that you are staff, your posting style is really quite unacceptable and immature for someone that is suppose to uphold a higher standard.

So, whether you realize it or not, when you say things like:


it is accusing and hostile. You are attacking the person instead of the issue.


I absolutely agree with you & that freedom should be afforded to me as well without being attacked by a staff member or any other member of this board. I am not attacking anyone for disagreeing with my views; you however are and it is wrong.

okay, you are right and i am wrong.
 

groundpounder

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,933
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
What I am finding on this board is that you can say just about anything you want if you're knocking conservatives or the right, but as soon as someone (like me) starts pointing out the stupidity of liberal policies, all of a sudden its an attack.
that is a very astute observation. :smiley24:

Personally, I think there could be a sub-section of the Philosophy and Debate section called "The Furnace"
Anything goes except personal threats, and when something gets out of hand, it gets moved there. If someone starts an incendiary thread, "I hate abortion" or "Gay Marriage sucks" it goes there.

Only the thickest of skin could survive the fires of The Furnace. Ergo, if your skin is not thick, don't venture in.

Outside of The Furnace, name calling and name calling only is prohibited.

Thoughts?

And to back the OP, the CA Supreme Court is grossly overstepping their boundaries in their duties as the Judicial branch of government.

Marriage = legal (and spiritual) joining of man and woman. Why is this so hard to contemplate and leave alone? Progressive thinkers who profess themselves to be enlightened and tolerant are actually intolerant of those who hold this view. [/irony]

Civil union = legal joining of persons of the same sex. Acceptance and tolerance is key. I see a lot of that in this thread as it relates to the union itself. That's something to celebrate.
 

TheOriginalJames

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,395
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
Is it really necessary for the thread starter to have said "The tripe conservatives and religious right feed us about saving the family is crap?"

Sure, that's his opinion on a political standing. He's not mentioning anyone here by saying "you".

What I am finding on this board is that you can say just about anything you want if you're knocking conservatives or the right, but as soon as someone (like me) starts pointing out the stupidity of liberal policies, all of a sudden its an attack.

Where's the Freedom of Expression?

What in the hell are you talking about? Talk about the stupidity of liberal policies in the government for all anyone cares. You're not, i repeat, NOT attacking anybody on this board doing that.

but I can't tell someone their viewpoint is based on a complete and utter lack of understanding of economics or the Constitution?

Why bother? You calling someone ignorant is just going to start fueling the fire and turn a healthy debate into a flame fest. So AGAIN, I ask, WHY BOTHER? Keep it clean, there is absolutely NO point to telling someone they don't understand, or they're "ignorant" or anything remotely close to this.


Makes no sense--as soon as someone gets called on their opinion they can simply claim I'm being hostile--that's bullshit in my view. I don't respect your opinion until you can prove to me you know what your talking about. This "respect other people's opinions" is a load of crap--respect should be earned not given away. Some people's opinions don't deserve any respect because their opinions are based on emotion and ignorance. I think if you want to debate, you should have thick enough skin to do it or stay out of it. As the old saying goes if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.


Oh... ok... so because someone isn't aware of 100% of everything that goes on, they're not allowed to have an opinion?

Now what would you do if your opinion was wrong?

Door #1: Would you enjoy it if the person was polite and took the time to simply explain why its wrong, and prove to you the correct answer?

Or

Door #2: Would you rather them just call you ignorant and move on?



And I've seen the phrase "Stop watching Fox News" more than a few times--is that not also saying, "You are a fucking idiot?" That's clearly the intent of it.

[Nothing to do with anything]

Again--semantics--all a matter of perception. What you need is a no name calling policy, not a "no hostility" policy--the former is objectively enforced, the latter is unable to be objectively enforced.

Please read the rules.

*While debating and discussion is fine, we will not tolerate rudeness, insulting posts, personal attacks, or purposeless inflammatory posts. The Administrators decisions are final in these matters. Or in some cases, a Moderators decision is final in these matters.

To me this pretty much means don't be hostile. Whether or not you think it's just semantics and based on perceptions is entirely irrelevant. Just don't go around telling people they're ignorant and you'll get along with people on here so much better.

Is this extremely short and easy point I've made really that hard to comprehend for you? You seem fairly intelligent, you're just not making sense.


Now how does those last two sentences feel? Pretty inflammatory, aren't they?
 

Obdurate

Active Member
Messages
1,619
Reaction score
0
Tokenz
0.00z
About the respect thing, I guess I'm kind of the opposite. I used to think people had to earn respect but now I'm of the mind that I start off respecting EVERYONE and then they determine whether I do or don't later on.

As for the gay marriage. Good, it's about time, even though the homophobia problem is far from solved, and it may never end, at least it's a start.
 
78,875Threads
2,185,391Messages
4,959Members
Back
Top