Prop 8 aftermath in California - Page 3

jerome_oneil · 11-07-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parabellum

You are assuming that anything that exists must have a source.

We're wading in deep philosophical waters. I'll preface this with one of Bertrand Russell's favorites...

"The point of philosophy is to start with something so simple as not to seem worth stating, and to end with something so paradoxical that no one will believe it."

Having said that, what you have stated is that all of reality is but an assumption. And to a degree, I'm with that. I believe fully in Descarte's cogito (I think, therefore I am) but I don't think people put enough thought into the follow on of that. I know I exist. It's you I'm not so certain about.

Quote:

Not bearded man in the sky, just chaos and order.

If the laws of the jungle are the only rule, and all that exists are those things that are tangible, then your rights are also merely the creation of chaos and order, and as a result of their intangible nature, as supposed at the top of this post, do not exist at all.

jim schmidt · 11-07-2008, 04:42 PM

When you affirm to make some of your neighbors second class citizens, you shouldn't be surprised when some fires get started. The idea that those who've had their rights curtailed might just say, "Oh well, that's democracy" ought to be as obviously idiotic as it is democratically idiotic. Equality is a key aspect of democracy.

Amending constitutional documents to eliminate bigotry is one consistent and fundamental manner of progress in our country. Amending a constitutional document to institutionalize it is utterly shameful.

mac 1 · 11-07-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. coffee

I think you're referring to Catholics.

yeah them too, your not catholic are you

jerome_oneil · 11-07-2008, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punkwood2k

I can take away your freedom with a pair of handcuffs and duct tape. for as long as I want.

As exciting as that may sound, that would not be taking away anyone's freedom. It would be suppressing it.

Quote:

so, if freedom can be taken away, then it is not a Law of nature, and therefore disproves your God using your own logic.

Since it can't be taken away, only protected or suppressed, all you've done is argue that freedom doesn't exist at all.

mr. coffee · 11-07-2008, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac 1

yeah them too, your not catholic are you

Nope. But I do understand the proper use of "your" however.

mac 1 · 11-07-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. coffee

Nope. But I do understand the proper use of "your" however.

sorry haven't had any coffee today

Punkwood2k · 11-07-2008, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr. coffee

I think you're referring to Catholics.

Um yeah.. GOD(tm) fearing, pillars of the community , catholic clergy..

SXSMITH · 11-07-2008, 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parabellum

The govt should not be recognizing ANY religious status in the first place.

True. Including taxing it.

SXSMITH · 11-07-2008, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Parabellum

More than 80% of this country once supported legal lynching....I guess you favored majority rule then too?

They still do. It's still a death penalty option in Washington and New Hampshire.

You didn't know the government can still hang you by the neck until death?

Wake up man! Get with the times!

SXSMITH · 11-07-2008, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punkwood2k

according to YOUR God..

And according to the state. Which is in charge of regulating marriage by issuing licenses.

Punkwood2k · 11-07-2008, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SXSMITH

And according to the state. Which is in charge of regulating marriage by issuing licenses.

There is no legitimate basis for ANY state to ban gay marraige. the ONLY argument ever used involves the words GOD or Bible, or something. Which INSTANTLY invalidates the argument invoking those words.

this is nothing more than state sanctioned discrimination and bigotry. Enforced hate. It is the same thing as when Whites were not allowed to marry blacks. nothing different.

soccerpimp09 · 11-07-2008, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Punkwood2k

There is no legitimate basis for ANY state to ban gay marraige. the ONLY argument ever used involves the words GOD or Bible, or something. Which INSTANTLY invalidates the argument invoking those words.

this is nothing more than state sanctioned discrimination and bigotry. Enforced hate. It is the same thing as when Whites were not allowed to marry blacks. nothing different.

+1million...

How does gay people getting married HURT ANYONE!?!?! aside from the bible thumpers who wont be able to sleep at night?... is there any legal or logical reason for not letting them? would that bible thumper know said couple was married if they saw them in the street... (minus a wedding ring) - no.. so what does it matter.... let them get married - stop living your life by the morals created 2000 years ago -

problem with democracy is... majority rules...
and the majority of people are stupid.

beowulf2k · 11-07-2008, 05:07 PM

With their luck, Gay Marriage will pass and then California will break off into the ocean.

As for how does it hurt anyone? How does one explain to a 5 year old why those two old men are making out and where do babies come from.

History has already been made once-now we are going to have to add the addition of homosexual history to the classroom? Because that is the only way kids will have to "properly" learn of it.

cbrenthus · 11-07-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by soccerpimp09

problem with democracy is... majority rules...
and the majority of people are stupid.

Damn straight, look who they elected for president!

Punkwood2k · 11-07-2008, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beowulf2k

With their luck, Gay Marriage will pass and then California will break off into the ocean.

As for how does it hurt anyone? How does one explain to a 5 year old why those two old men are making out and where do babies come from.

History has already been made once-now we are going to have to add the addition of homosexual history to the classroom? Because that is the only way kids will have to "properly" learn of it.

if you can explain to me how a marriage ban is going to stop men from kissing, then I will entertain your stupid analogy.

Exactly how do you explain a white girl kissing a black guy? How do you explain love? How are you going to explain Love is okay one way, but not another?

And again.. exactly how is a Marriage ban going to prevent men from kissing. Probably the same way your type things that a law against murder MUST mean people no longer murder.

this is about rights, not your squeamish homophobe fear of seeing two men happy with each other.