Does anyone on this board actually oppose gay marriage?

Forums: Philosophy
Email this Topic • Print this Page

If so, why? I've yet to hear a legitimate argument.
And if it is something about "religion" or "tradition," then you might want to consider instead morality.

Morality says that discrimination is wrong. Tradition/religion says that it is not wrong. Morality has precedence. Unless, of course, you are immoral.

http://www.hrc.org/Template.cfm?Section=Center&Template=/ContentManagement/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=16761

I'm sure all would agree. Discrimination is wrong. Unless, of course, you are a sick fascist.

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 3,588 • Replies: 81

No top replies

I support gay marriage, but plenty users here don't.

Of course, no one is likely to respond with any serious arguement after you pre-emptedly called those people sick fascists.

0 Replies

I was saying that only sick fascists actually support discrimination.

0 Replies

God says bums are no touchy!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

God says bums are no touchy!

So I suppose that goes for man and woman bum touchy too? Rolling Eyes

Let's try to get a little beyond the "old in & out", shall we?

0 Replies

aktorist wrote:

I was saying that only sick fascists actually support discrimination.

So how long have you been a sick fascist then??

0 Replies

the dys irony quote of the day;
"I hate bigots"

0 Replies

aktorist wrote:

I was saying that only sick fascists actually support discrimination.

Wow, what a truly descriminative statement.

Discrimination is quoted as unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice. Fascism on the other hand is simply a system of government; what a prejudiced thing to say, as to imply that all fascists are sick, and discriminative, which is surely not true. You are discriminating harshly against fascists. Only sick fascists support discrimination? I've seen many Americans under a democratic system who are very discriminative. You seem to be saying that simply because someone is under a certain form of government, that you can descern that they are automatically discriminative and sick.

0 Replies

Amen CrazyDiamond!

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

Chumly wrote:
God says bums are no touchy!

So I suppose that goes for man and woman bum touchy too?

please God say it ain't soLet's

try to get a little beyond the "old in & out", shall we?

don't knock the old in and out okay?

0 Replies

Chai Tea wrote:

Chumly wrote:
God says bums are no touchy!

So I suppose that goes for man and woman bum touchy too?

Let's try to get a little beyond the "old in & out", shall we?

Oh.......
GOD says all bum-bums are naughty Rolling Eyes

.
.
.
.
.
.

I am just kidding!

But I'll respond to your "old in & out" if you like. I say the hole issue starts and stops with the old in and out (exacerbated by the prejudice of the "dirty" Hershey Highway).

0 Replies

Quote:

Wow, what a truly descriminative statement.

Discrimination is quoted as unfair treatment of a person or group on the basis of prejudice. Fascism on the other hand is simply a system of government; what a prejudiced thing to say, as to imply that all fascists are sick, and discriminative, which is surely not true. You are discriminating harshly against fascists. Only sick fascists support discrimination? I've seen many Americans under a democratic system who are very discriminative. You seem to be saying that simply because someone is under a certain form of government, that you can descern that they are automatically discriminative and sick.

Still, irrational discrimination is wrong. The few: sex discrimination, racial discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, et cetera.

The others are to protect others from infliction. Yet, have they inflicted at all? Infliction to those who have done no infliction is wrong, right?

0 Replies

No problem with heterosexuals marrying, gay folk marrying, just about anyone marrying, really .... There was even a discussion here about a woman who married a dolphin, a couple of weeks ago. No problem with that either .... Laughing

My gripe is about the instituation of marriage, itself .... far too often it seems to end in tears. :wink:

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

But I'll respond to your "old in & out" if you like. I say the hole issue starts and stops with the old in and out (exacerbated by the prejudice of the "dirty" Hershey Highway).

Kindly grow up. Statements like yours do nothing to enlighten people or end prejudice against a group of people. For the record Chumly their is a heck of a lot more to homosexuality than just sexual escapades.

0 Replies

I've even had to recalibrate my old cringe-factor on polygamy. If it's legalized with proper safeguards to protect the parties involved, it should be legal.

0 Replies

aktorist wrote:

Still, irrational discrimination is wrong. The few: sex discrimination, racial discrimination, sexual orientation discrimination, et cetera.

The others are to protect others from infliction. Yet, have they inflicted at all? Infliction to those who have done no infliction is wrong, right?

Assuming by discrimination that you mean the following dictionary definition:
"Treatment or consideration based on class or category rather than individual merit; partiality or prejudice: racial discrimination; discrimination against foreigners".

Assuming by irrational that you mean the following dictionary definition:
"Marked by a lack of accord with reason or sound judgment: an irrational dislike".

Then I would argue that there is no such thing as rational discrimination. So with your use of the phrase "irrational discrimination" the word irrational is superfluous.

0 Replies

Sturgis wrote:

Chumly wrote:

But I'll respond to your "old in & out" if you like. I say the hole issue starts and stops with the old in and out (exacerbated by the prejudice of the "dirty" Hershey Highway).

Kindly grow up. Statements like yours do nothing to enlighten people or end prejudice against a group of people. For the record Chumly their is a heck of a lot more to homosexuality than just sexual escapades.

I live in Vancouver, and I am being funny, so you may lighten up now. By "in and out" I did not mean "sexual escapades" per se. The old "define your terms" rears it's ugly head once again, even in humor.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Sturgis wrote:
Chumly wrote:

But I'll respond to your "old in & out" if you like. I say the hole issue starts and stops with the old in and out (exacerbated by the prejudice of the "dirty" Hershey Highway).

Kindly grow up. Statements like yours do nothing to enlighten people or end prejudice against a group of people. For the record Chumly their is a heck of a lot more to homosexuality than just sexual escapades.
I live in Vancouver, and I am being funny, so you may lighten up now. By "in and out" I did not mean "sexual escapades" per se. The old "define your terms" rears it's ugly head once again, even in humor.

I do not see it as humor.

0 Replies

I note you did not respond to "exacerbated by the prejudice of the "dirty" Hershey Highway)."

0 Replies

Hi Sturgis,

Thankfully then not everyone shares your views on what is or is not humorous. I also must admit I question the efficacy of my posts at least in terms of the light your attempt to shed on them. Have you perchance been to Vancouver, and/or are you aware of Canada's stance on same sex relationships v. US and/or read any of my prior posts on this subject? I would contend you are jumping to conclusions not supported in evidence.

Talking about gay humors, have you eve been to a gay burlesque?

0 Replies

Does anyone on this board actually oppose gay marriage?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know