dogfaceman
Member
Originally Posted by chowtownreefer
http:///forum/post/2725504
god made jack and jill....
NOT jack and bill.
who made bill than?
http:///forum/post/2725504
god made jack and jill....
NOT jack and bill.
who made bill than?
n
- Thread starter dogfaceman
- Start date
texasmetal
Active Member
Originally Posted by chowtownreefer
http:///forum/post/2725504
god made jack and jill....
NOT jack and bill.
Too much emotion invested in devotion to see it from an objective perspective.
Dang, I sound like Jesse Jackson.
http:///forum/post/2725504
god made jack and jill....
NOT jack and bill.
Too much emotion invested in devotion to see it from an objective perspective.
Dang, I sound like Jesse Jackson.
T
tizzo
Guest
Tangman, you've used the word "tolerant" twice that I've seen in my scans...
Although I didn't vote at all, I can sorta sum up why one would vote no...or yes...
Your tolerance level is specific to you as an individual. What you choose to tolerate and when, is usually a boundry set by your own life experiences... Including your friends, your religion, your coworkers...
Everybody's "tolerances" of every scenario are simply a measure of what they, based on their current knowledge/ beliefs, deems to be the correct one.
And eating ice cream, by some, same as drinking coffee and beer, is against a religios belief.. I think they call it gluttony or pleasures of the flesh. So it's all based on the individual as far as what you wanna tolerate.
As far as a gay marriage... I wouldn't do it myself, but I can understand why another couple would, and I can also understand why people object to it.
Although I didn't vote at all, I can sorta sum up why one would vote no...or yes...
Your tolerance level is specific to you as an individual. What you choose to tolerate and when, is usually a boundry set by your own life experiences... Including your friends, your religion, your coworkers...
Everybody's "tolerances" of every scenario are simply a measure of what they, based on their current knowledge/ beliefs, deems to be the correct one.
And eating ice cream, by some, same as drinking coffee and beer, is against a religios belief.. I think they call it gluttony or pleasures of the flesh. So it's all based on the individual as far as what you wanna tolerate.
As far as a gay marriage... I wouldn't do it myself, but I can understand why another couple would, and I can also understand why people object to it.
ci11337
Active Member
aquaknight
Active Member
Originally Posted by TangMan99
http:///forum/post/2725158
No one asked anyone to defend themselves and I don't recall pointing out anyone specifically to reply. My only intention in asking is that 20 years ago I was an adamant NO person. 10 years ago I was an I don't care person. Today, I'm probably still closer to an I don't care person overall but know a few genuine people that don't want special treatment but to just be accepted as they are and have the same rights. For them specifically, I'd like to see them get their wish because they are great individuals. Having gone through a change in opinion in the past 20 years, I was just curious if anyone that said NO was saying for the same reasons I did back then. I could care less what one's opinion is and have no intention of trying to change someones mind.
I think this sort of highlights what I've been saying. What on earth do they want? Do they really want to be "married" in a church that truly does not want them? Are they happy with the term "civil union?" I hear the saying "they just want to be happy" used very often. How does forcing yourself onto those that don't agree, make you happy? I know if for some reason, the state of South Dakota, was particularlly upset with me, I could go along nice and happy in life, just staying clear of South Dakota.
Originally Posted by Tizzo
http:///forum/post/2726280
Tangman, you've used the word "tolerant" twice that I've seen in my scans...
Although I didn't vote at all, I can sorta sum up why one would vote no...or yes...
Your tolerance level is specific to you as an individual. What you choose to tolerate and when, is usually a boundry set by your own life experiences... Including your friends, your religion, your coworkers...
Everybody's "tolerances" of every scenario are simply a measure of what they, based on their current knowledge/ beliefs, deems to be the correct one.
And eating ice cream, by some, same as drinking coffee and beer, is against a religios belief.. I think they call it gluttony or pleasures of the flesh. So it's all based on the individual as far as what you wanna tolerate.
As far as a gay marriage... I wouldn't do it myself, but I can understand why another couple would, and I can also understand why people object to it.
Don't forget, some people object because of rights of others, and not necessarily because of how they view the stance.
http:///forum/post/2725158
No one asked anyone to defend themselves and I don't recall pointing out anyone specifically to reply. My only intention in asking is that 20 years ago I was an adamant NO person. 10 years ago I was an I don't care person. Today, I'm probably still closer to an I don't care person overall but know a few genuine people that don't want special treatment but to just be accepted as they are and have the same rights. For them specifically, I'd like to see them get their wish because they are great individuals. Having gone through a change in opinion in the past 20 years, I was just curious if anyone that said NO was saying for the same reasons I did back then. I could care less what one's opinion is and have no intention of trying to change someones mind.
I think this sort of highlights what I've been saying. What on earth do they want? Do they really want to be "married" in a church that truly does not want them? Are they happy with the term "civil union?" I hear the saying "they just want to be happy" used very often. How does forcing yourself onto those that don't agree, make you happy? I know if for some reason, the state of South Dakota, was particularlly upset with me, I could go along nice and happy in life, just staying clear of South Dakota.
Originally Posted by Tizzo
http:///forum/post/2726280
Tangman, you've used the word "tolerant" twice that I've seen in my scans...
Although I didn't vote at all, I can sorta sum up why one would vote no...or yes...
Your tolerance level is specific to you as an individual. What you choose to tolerate and when, is usually a boundry set by your own life experiences... Including your friends, your religion, your coworkers...
Everybody's "tolerances" of every scenario are simply a measure of what they, based on their current knowledge/ beliefs, deems to be the correct one.
And eating ice cream, by some, same as drinking coffee and beer, is against a religios belief.. I think they call it gluttony or pleasures of the flesh. So it's all based on the individual as far as what you wanna tolerate.
As far as a gay marriage... I wouldn't do it myself, but I can understand why another couple would, and I can also understand why people object to it.
Don't forget, some people object because of rights of others, and not necessarily because of how they view the stance.
T
tizzo
Guest
Originally Posted by AquaKnight
http:///forum/post/2726316
Don't forget, some people object because of rights of others, and not necessarily because of how they view the stance.
Oh I certainly didn't forget. It is precisely why I am trying to explain why some people are against it, cause I don't think they really know how to explain "why" they feel the way they do...
But discussing, "Why are you debating a perspective you do not agree with" is not the same as "Explain to me, why you are for/ against it"
I was targeting the latter.
http:///forum/post/2726316
Don't forget, some people object because of rights of others, and not necessarily because of how they view the stance.
Oh I certainly didn't forget. It is precisely why I am trying to explain why some people are against it, cause I don't think they really know how to explain "why" they feel the way they do...
But discussing, "Why are you debating a perspective you do not agree with" is not the same as "Explain to me, why you are for/ against it"
I was targeting the latter.
T
tizzo
Guest
Originally Posted by TangMan99
http:///forum/post/2724595
Well one thing has been consistent here. Everyone that has voted NO has simply said NO with no explanation as to why. I voted yes based on situations I have observed and people I have come to know.
That is what I was referring to...
I cannot cut/ paste as my screen is cracked.
http:///forum/post/2724595
Well one thing has been consistent here. Everyone that has voted NO has simply said NO with no explanation as to why. I voted yes based on situations I have observed and people I have come to know.
That is what I was referring to...
I cannot cut/ paste as my screen is cracked.
maryg
Member
Originally Posted by FishyGurl
http:///forum/post/2724179
i said yes because if they are like that, then so be it they can still love eachother. and thats what marriage is about..
Anyways, just to let you know, i am not a lesbian or bi.
I just think you shouldnt judge people like that. Its kinda like racism in a different way i guess idk.
Anyways i think you would of had a lot more votes if you left the poll not public so then people wouldnt have to back up there answers or for people to think differently of them over a question which is their opinion.. Just my thoughts.
Why not. I am "hetero" and have been married to my husband for 20 years. I know some "gay" distant family members that have been together as long as we have. There is enough love for all of us. Their marriages would probably last more than most traditional marriages these days! Divorce is a easy way out for some. If they live together for so many years and are happy then they should share all the benefits as regular married folk. (ie: medical insurance and so on...) IMO...
http:///forum/post/2724179
i said yes because if they are like that, then so be it they can still love eachother. and thats what marriage is about..
Anyways, just to let you know, i am not a lesbian or bi.
I just think you shouldnt judge people like that. Its kinda like racism in a different way i guess idk.
Anyways i think you would of had a lot more votes if you left the poll not public so then people wouldnt have to back up there answers or for people to think differently of them over a question which is their opinion.. Just my thoughts.
Why not. I am "hetero" and have been married to my husband for 20 years. I know some "gay" distant family members that have been together as long as we have. There is enough love for all of us. Their marriages would probably last more than most traditional marriages these days! Divorce is a easy way out for some. If they live together for so many years and are happy then they should share all the benefits as regular married folk. (ie: medical insurance and so on...) IMO...
newreeferpa
Member
Originally Posted by TangMan99
http:///forum/post/2724555
I say yes. Who are we to decide who someone can and can not share their life with to be happy? Just about every argument I have seen against it is from ignorance or religious beliefs. There was a time when I was much younger that I fell into the ignorance group being from a very small and prejudice town.
Then there came the point in my life where I saw there was a bigger world out there and I became tolerant of it and could care less.
Now knowing several gay people professionally and seeing the injustice they have to deal with, I can now say yes. I work with a lady that has been with her partner for many years. They have children together from her partner by using a donor but she has no rights whatsoever to what everyone considers her children. They can't get family healthcare so they each have to buy individual healthcare policies. They also each pay individual tax rates. Just doesn't seem right to me.
You can argue the religious aspect all you want of it being sinful. I'm just glad someone who made up all those religious rules didn't associate icecream with sin, wickedness and satan or we would be having a poll on "Should we be allowed to eat icecream".
well said
http:///forum/post/2724555
I say yes. Who are we to decide who someone can and can not share their life with to be happy? Just about every argument I have seen against it is from ignorance or religious beliefs. There was a time when I was much younger that I fell into the ignorance group being from a very small and prejudice town.
Then there came the point in my life where I saw there was a bigger world out there and I became tolerant of it and could care less.
Now knowing several gay people professionally and seeing the injustice they have to deal with, I can now say yes. I work with a lady that has been with her partner for many years. They have children together from her partner by using a donor but she has no rights whatsoever to what everyone considers her children. They can't get family healthcare so they each have to buy individual healthcare policies. They also each pay individual tax rates. Just doesn't seem right to me.
You can argue the religious aspect all you want of it being sinful. I'm just glad someone who made up all those religious rules didn't associate icecream with sin, wickedness and satan or we would be having a poll on "Should we be allowed to eat icecream".
salty blues
Active Member
Marriage, since the dawn of humanity, has required one man and one woman. Therefore, the idea of "gay marriage" does not compute and is quite illogical.
You may apply some other term to this ridiculous idea, but marriage requires two members of the opposite gender.
You may apply some other term to this ridiculous idea, but marriage requires two members of the opposite gender.
salty blues
Active Member
Marriage, since the dawn of humanity, has required one man and one woman. Therefore, the idea of "gay marriage" does not compute and is quite illogical.
You may apply some other term to this ridiculous idea, but marriage requires two members of opposite gender.
You may apply some other term to this ridiculous idea, but marriage requires two members of opposite gender.
salty blues
Active Member
tangman99
Active Member
Originally Posted by Tizzo
http:///forum/post/2726280
And eating ice cream, by some, same as drinking coffee and beer, is against a religios belief.. I think they call it gluttony or pleasures of the flesh. So it's all based on the individual as far as what you wanna tolerate.
Aw man! So are you telling me I'm going to Hell for eating icecream?
http:///forum/post/2726280
And eating ice cream, by some, same as drinking coffee and beer, is against a religios belief.. I think they call it gluttony or pleasures of the flesh. So it's all based on the individual as far as what you wanna tolerate.
Aw man! So are you telling me I'm going to Hell for eating icecream?
socal57che
Active Member
Originally Posted by dogfaceman
http:///forum/post/2725997
?
"Could care less" means that you care.
"Couldn't care less" means you could not possibly care any less. (i.e. I do not care at all)
Now see what you've caused.
http:///forum/post/2725997
?
"Could care less" means that you care.
"Couldn't care less" means you could not possibly care any less. (i.e. I do not care at all)
Now see what you've caused.
hammerhed7
Active Member
Sure, why not? Gay people should have the right to be as miserable as everyone else
T
tizzo
Guest
Originally Posted by TangMan99
http:///forum/post/2726982
Aw man! So are you telling me I'm going to Hell for eating icecream?
Depends on who you ask.
But you don't go to hell for it... it'd just be a sin. Like any other.
http:///forum/post/2726982
Aw man! So are you telling me I'm going to Hell for eating icecream?
Depends on who you ask.
But you don't go to hell for it... it'd just be a sin. Like any other.
T
tizzo
Guest
Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2726928
Marriage, since the dawn of humanity, has required one man and one woman. Therefore, the idea of "gay marriage" does not compute and is quite illogical.
I used to agree with that, until I noticed that most dictionaries have literally changed the definition of marriage.
1. A formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
*a similiar long term relationship between partners of the same ---.
So now... it is not illogical being that it is by the very definition computable...
On a personal note though. I wish they woulda legalized "partnership" instead of changing the definition of marriage...
http:///forum/post/2726928
Marriage, since the dawn of humanity, has required one man and one woman. Therefore, the idea of "gay marriage" does not compute and is quite illogical.
I used to agree with that, until I noticed that most dictionaries have literally changed the definition of marriage.
1. A formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.
*a similiar long term relationship between partners of the same ---.
So now... it is not illogical being that it is by the very definition computable...
On a personal note though. I wish they woulda legalized "partnership" instead of changing the definition of marriage...
hlcroghan
Active Member
I say yes simply because I believe people have a right to be happy however they want as long as it is not hurting anyone else. Kind of like the saying "Do no harm". I do not think that seeing two people of the same --- hurts children. It is very easy to explain. They love each other. That is how they choose to show their love. As long as they are not being inappropriate in public,in front of my children, it is not my business how they choose to live their lives.
As far as the religion perspective, I have studied so many religions that I do not have one particuar belief although I do believe in God. And knowing what I do I refuse to believe that anything that can create such a beautiful existence is going condemn a good person who loves others and does great things in their lives simply because the person they love has the same sexual organs.
Let's use an example that everyone here will appreciate........is the clownfish going to hell when it changes from Marlin to Coral and chooses to mate with Marlin #2? That in the eyes of religion is a sin technically. I do not care if it is fish or humans. No creature on this earth is above another in my eyes.
As far as the religion perspective, I have studied so many religions that I do not have one particuar belief although I do believe in God. And knowing what I do I refuse to believe that anything that can create such a beautiful existence is going condemn a good person who loves others and does great things in their lives simply because the person they love has the same sexual organs.
Let's use an example that everyone here will appreciate........is the clownfish going to hell when it changes from Marlin to Coral and chooses to mate with Marlin #2? That in the eyes of religion is a sin technically. I do not care if it is fish or humans. No creature on this earth is above another in my eyes.
darthtang aw
Active Member
Originally Posted by hlcroghan
http:///forum/post/2727607
I say yes simply because I believe people have a right to be happy however they want as long as it is not hurting anyone else. Kind of like the saying "Do no harm". I do not think that seeing two people of the same --- hurts children. It is very easy to explain. They love each other. That is how they choose to show their love. As long as they are not being inappropriate in public,in front of my children, it is not my business how they choose to live their lives.
As far as the religion perspective, I have studied so many religions that I do not have one particuar belief although I do believe in God. And knowing what I do I refuse to believe that anything that can create such a beautiful existence is going condemn a good person who loves others and does great things in their lives simply because the person they love has the same sexual organs.
Let's use an example that everyone here will appreciate........is the clownfish going to hell when it changes from Marlin to Coral and chooses to mate with Marlin #2? That in the eyes of religion is a sin technically. I do not care if it is fish or humans. No creature on this earth is above another in my eyes.
Bad example, because any religion involving heaven and hell does not accept animal as they do not have souls.
http:///forum/post/2727607
I say yes simply because I believe people have a right to be happy however they want as long as it is not hurting anyone else. Kind of like the saying "Do no harm". I do not think that seeing two people of the same --- hurts children. It is very easy to explain. They love each other. That is how they choose to show their love. As long as they are not being inappropriate in public,in front of my children, it is not my business how they choose to live their lives.
As far as the religion perspective, I have studied so many religions that I do not have one particuar belief although I do believe in God. And knowing what I do I refuse to believe that anything that can create such a beautiful existence is going condemn a good person who loves others and does great things in their lives simply because the person they love has the same sexual organs.
Let's use an example that everyone here will appreciate........is the clownfish going to hell when it changes from Marlin to Coral and chooses to mate with Marlin #2? That in the eyes of religion is a sin technically. I do not care if it is fish or humans. No creature on this earth is above another in my eyes.
Bad example, because any religion involving heaven and hell does not accept animal as they do not have souls.