-
Smogon Premier League is here and the team collection is now available. Support your team!
-
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.
Prop 8
- Thread starter Kristy Haruka
- Start date
- Status
This doesn't affect me - I live in Australia, but sorry I'm disagreeing. I'm Christian and don't believe in same-sex marriages.
Gays can love each other, I have no problem with that, I think it's wrong, but it's their choice and I will tolerate that. But to be joined in a homosexual union recognised by the church and the government to me is just wrong.
I'll definitely offend some people, and for this I apologise in advance.
Gays can love each other, I have no problem with that, I think it's wrong, but it's their choice and I will tolerate that. But to be joined in a homosexual union recognised by the church and the government to me is just wrong.
I'll definitely offend some people, and for this I apologise in advance.
Your beliefs are intolerant.
That's ridiculously over the top and not even a suitable comparison. Refusing to eat that dinner because you hate broccoli is a small issue of interpersonal offence. One's position on this issue is a matter, if you care, is about your beliefs. Also, in that case, that person has cooked you a dinner -- it is a gift in a way from them and it's considered polite to accept. I fail to see how gifts apply to this.
You don't like my sexual preference.
It's OK. I'm old enough to handle it like a man. It offends me more that you think you're protecting me from something by sitting on the fence and refusing to justify your own beliefs to me.
You're making it your business in this thread. Obviously you shouldn't go up to them and say 'You're a (BAN ME PLEASE)! Burn in hell,' but this is a Cong thread. Either post what you think truly or don't bother trying to please what you think the majority is yet stick true to yourself. People who try to go both ways tend to just piss off both people anyway.
@Anti:
Have you heard the news?
The dogs are dead!
You better stay home
And do as you're told
Get out of the road if you want to grow old.
come to think of it
doesn't even make sense, you contradict yourself
better a sheep that evolved than one that was made by some genie without a bottle snapping it's fingers
harm/you dont like are often the same thing! harm is just a subcategory of "you dont like". and you only tolerate something as much as you can deal with some part of yourself being changed or "harmed".
completely trivial compared to what you are saying. that isjust apersonal, physiical based preference.
no one is forcing a single thing on you. there is no unpleasant thing to eat EXCEPT YOUR OWN PHYSICAL FEAR OF GAY GUYS FUCKING
nope you're standing up for your physical self and thats not exaclty noble but at least youre telling people what you feel. you cant control what you feel
kind of like gays, get it?
no there is not. keeping your opinions to yourself is being scared of what people wil lthink of them (cowardice)
we all practise this form of cowardice in some form or another. i dont tell people what i think of when i masturbate because i dont really think its relevant to who i am.
but we are dealing with a simple, beautiful thing called love and you are denying someone love by simply "believing it is worng"
rubbish in this case, not rubbish in the case of *baby i think you look fat in the dress.
denying knowledge this important is utter nonesense.
coward. you make it your business by thinking about it.
you have no right to act based on a faulty opinion and that is what people like you are doing.
in small simple words: you beleive something is wrong because it is a distasteful image to you and you're happy with not questioning the premises god has for forbidding gays. you dont tell people because youre scared of what they tihnk of you
in small simple words youre a coward. its not the worst thing in the entire world but you need to come to terms with it
if you are unwilling t question knowledge you are a coward
you just fucked yourself over with that comment
Remind me again...since when does a state proposition have anything to do with the church? This should be a civil rights argument, not a religious argument.
what belief? you believe that its easy to live your life if your religion decides everything for you.
theyre right and youre naive if you think its just sexual
if your belief in "knowledge" is such that you are unwilling to shift/question the knowledge itself
that belief is worthless, and coincidentally, so is the knowledge.
im intolerant of ignorance
i do not want ignorance to ever exist ever.i do not tolerate it. ignorance has no funciton whatsoever
you dont want gays to fuck because it makes you queasy
see the difference?
youre scared of making a single descision on your own without approval. you have issues.
IF HES NOT PERFECT? let's explore that. you have a doubt that everything in the bible could be true?
you really think there were talking snakes way back when? you really think women should never teach?
id rather you have a more fulfilled life
i am pretty much awesome ^_^
Skiddle there are so, so many parts of the bible that people choose to ignore because they are outdated. The bible pretty strongly advocates sexism, and ridiculously harsh punishments. How do you justify picking and choosing which parts you want to obey? American Christians are already not following the bible to the T, so I don't really see why one more ignored clause makes a flying fuck of a difference.
Of course, in my ideal world this would be about civil rights since the constitution pretty clearly prohibits a union of church and state affairs.
Of course, in my ideal world this would be about civil rights since the constitution pretty clearly prohibits a union of church and state affairs.
I don't want this to turn into a 'God is just an imaginary friend you're retarded' vs. 'GOD IS REAL THE BIBLE SAYS SO' shitstorm either. But if you're going to start going down that path you can't just say no one can challenge that justification because it'll derail the thread.
I would just like to point out that Marriage predates Christianity. To replace the term marriage with the term civil union is just patronising people who probably honestly dont approve of gay civil unions anyway. This is just picking apart the semantics of an argument that never had any basis to begin with..
Have a nice day.
Have a nice day.
I have no moral issue with singling out those which promote homophobia; would you have a problem calling a racist an arsehole? "He has every right to tell that African American "(BAN ME PLEASE)" to go back to the cotton fields!" "Oh he's got a 2000 year old book that says it's okay, we can't disagree with him now!"
I found out about this and the only good thing it did was give me a topic to write about for a 2000 word paper I had due a few days later.
As far as I can see, parents are apparently afraid that their children might learn to accept people regardless of sexual orientation. Oh noes, what a terrible thing. I mean, they were up in arms because their children attended their lesbian teacher's wedding? Are you fucking kidding me? That's reason for an outrage now?
If this is a religious thing, the state should have nothing to do with it anyway. All this law does is discriminate based on sexual orientation. I don't see how this is acceptable at all. If this was proposed in Canada people would throw a fit.
As far as I can see, parents are apparently afraid that their children might learn to accept people regardless of sexual orientation. Oh noes, what a terrible thing. I mean, they were up in arms because their children attended their lesbian teacher's wedding? Are you fucking kidding me? That's reason for an outrage now?
If this is a religious thing, the state should have nothing to do with it anyway. All this law does is discriminate based on sexual orientation. I don't see how this is acceptable at all. If this was proposed in Canada people would throw a fit.
Guys you're getting confused, there is no "religious" point of view here, this was for gay marriage by the law. There is no point of arguing using your religion as to why it is wrong.Some religions forbade the consumption of meat on certain days, would you go out and manifest how detestable is to eat meat at easter?
And please, have some empathy with the gay people that want to have the right to get married with anyone they want. It shouldn't affect you, not even your God...
And please, have some empathy with the gay people that want to have the right to get married with anyone they want. It shouldn't affect you, not even your God...
It's so fucking holy but Britney Spears can get married for 24 hours and then call it quits. It's so fucking holy but you can have an Elvis impersonator do the honors. It's so fucking holy but over 50% of all marriages end in divorce.
Get off your high horse. If it's so fucking holy then it should be treated as such. It ISN'T. It's more a legal bind than a holy sacrament in the US. If you want holy sacrament, discuss marriage in a country where religion governs and not free and equal rights.
I'm not allowed to eat meat every Friday :(
Unless I'm at a restaurant with friends or something. Then screw that. I'm not spending $20 on crappy food for a religion I don't believe in. I just do it in other cases as my mom and grandma want me to and I honestly don't mind too much.
Unless I'm at a restaurant with friends or something. Then screw that. I'm not spending $20 on crappy food for a religion I don't believe in. I just do it in other cases as my mom and grandma want me to and I honestly don't mind too much.
Contrary to popular opinion, marriage is not seen as a religioius instituiton by the government. The court's definition of marriage (and I can tell you this from working in the CA family court system in the past) is that it's only a contract signed between two people that dictates how assets are regulated when two people decide to tie their financial lives together or start a family, such as how they're divided up when the relationship doesn't work out. There's no sacred or religious anything involved with it.
I guess the best way to explain this is it's like Christmas. On one had, you've got the American public, Hallmark Christmas with Santa Claus and Jack Frost and Rudolph, etc..., and on the other side you have the hardcore religious Christmas which is more about the birth of Jesus than the rest of that stuff.
Anyway, prop 8 is only based on bigotry and people's religious agendas that don't have any place in gov't and I'll vote no on it later today.
There's a lot I could rip at here, and I might at a time that isn't getting closer and closer to 4 AM on a day when I have class the next morning, but this stood out particularly strongly in my head reading this thread...
While your posts in this thread have been a sea of bullshit this is like the bullshit whirlpool sucking in all the intelligent thoughts and making them into more bullshit.
Seriously, are you kidding me? You basically just said "I have the right to think whatever I want, regardless of how immoral or uneducated my views are", which is putting words in your mouth but it is a pretty decent a->b from your previous posts. This is a ridiculous statement, you don't have the "right" to be ignorant about anything, at least in my view, especially in situations like the root of this topic where people are voting on an issue that will effect thousands of people's lives. There's nothing that should "allow" you to choose to be ignorant regardless of what your "prerogative" is.
This is not 'tolerance'. You are not choosing to "endure" the plight that apparently is the homosexuals for some sort of comedic greater good, you're doing it because it's socially acceptable. You've made it pretty clear in what I quoted above you don't respect or really tolerate homosexuality, but that you deal with it because you have to. That's intolerance, not tolerance.
I don't have a source on this but I'd had some interesting chats with one of my bosses last summer who'd been reading some material for one of her classes about how intolerance was only one step down from hatred, and that in practice they were pretty much the same thing. I'm not going to draw any farther conclusions without a source to work with since this is hardly a common knowledge claim, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions here... I'm not really sure why you're judging your values on the perception people have of you, but I'm pretty sure no one looking at this objectively is going to see your argument very positively.
There's a bunch more of these I'm too lazy to go find at this point but the ad hominem doesn't really help your credibility, either. I know I'm kind of being hypocritical with the sea of bullshit line but honestly at least be subtle...
While your posts in this thread have been a sea of bullshit this is like the bullshit whirlpool sucking in all the intelligent thoughts and making them into more bullshit.
Seriously, are you kidding me? You basically just said "I have the right to think whatever I want, regardless of how immoral or uneducated my views are", which is putting words in your mouth but it is a pretty decent a->b from your previous posts. This is a ridiculous statement, you don't have the "right" to be ignorant about anything, at least in my view, especially in situations like the root of this topic where people are voting on an issue that will effect thousands of people's lives. There's nothing that should "allow" you to choose to be ignorant regardless of what your "prerogative" is.
skiddle said:
skiddle said:
dictionary.com said:
This is not 'tolerance'. You are not choosing to "endure" the plight that apparently is the homosexuals for some sort of comedic greater good, you're doing it because it's socially acceptable. You've made it pretty clear in what I quoted above you don't respect or really tolerate homosexuality, but that you deal with it because you have to. That's intolerance, not tolerance.
I don't have a source on this but I'd had some interesting chats with one of my bosses last summer who'd been reading some material for one of her classes about how intolerance was only one step down from hatred, and that in practice they were pretty much the same thing. I'm not going to draw any farther conclusions without a source to work with since this is hardly a common knowledge claim, but I'll let you draw your own conclusions here... I'm not really sure why you're judging your values on the perception people have of you, but I'm pretty sure no one looking at this objectively is going to see your argument very positively.
skiddle said:
There's a bunch more of these I'm too lazy to go find at this point but the ad hominem doesn't really help your credibility, either. I know I'm kind of being hypocritical with the sea of bullshit line but honestly at least be subtle...
Also I'm not sure this is really worth an extra post but since I see some of the non-Americans are confused - propositions vary state by state, this is specific to California, at the moment. Of course, the results in one state's polls, California's in particular historically, do tend to have an effect on how propositions are passed and proposed in other states in the future, but at least looking at this myopically for the moment only Californians can actually vote on it right now
I'd personally vote "no" on this proposition. I don't think we have the right to call marriage a "sacred institution" in a country where 40-50% of all marriages end up failing, but there is definitely the idea that it is a religious institution, so I can see where the Christian Right is coming from.
- Status