06-30-2014 01:17 AM
1,813 12345 ...
tools
  1. llamabreath's Avatar
    You might want to inform yourself on science. Homosexuality is not a choice; it is a congenital trait. Who in the right mind would choose to be bullied, harassed, and have their rights stripped by millions of people?

    Sent from my pure Google Nexus 4 using Android Central Forums
    People that think it's "cool" to be part of a "movement". Not dissimilar to why so many whites voted for Obama.

    Sent from Hotlanta via New Yawk
    06-28-2013 01:43 AM
  2. Aquila's Avatar
    People that think it's "cool" to be part of a "movement". Not dissimilar to why so many whites voted for Obama.

    Sent from Hotlanta via New Yawk
    Aside from the democrats that voted party lines?
    06-28-2013 01:44 AM
  3. llamabreath's Avatar
    yes

    Sent from Hotlanta via New Yawk
    06-28-2013 01:49 AM
  4. Fairclough's Avatar
    I thought no one basically votes in the us. Here it's a $50 fine if you don't. To be honest that's a good motivator.

    About the weed comment, if you have a right to smoke a natural plant I have the right to use a stick (not weed but wood) to smack you over the head with. Last time I checked earth didn't come with a set of instructions how to use it.

    Its funny seeing how conservative some people are.

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    06-28-2013 02:03 AM
  5. JHBThree's Avatar
    People that think it's "cool" to be part of a "movement". Not dissimilar to why so many whites voted for Obama.

    Sent from Hotlanta via New Yawk
    So to be clear, are you saying some people are saying they're gay to be part of a movement?

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    06-28-2013 02:07 AM
  6. Aquila's Avatar
    yes

    Sent from Hotlanta via New Yawk
    I might be a bad example, as I did not vote for Obama in his first election, (I voted third party) but between him and McCain I found his argument to be more compelling. If I were to choose between those two, I would vote for Obama. It has nothing to do with his color, or party, because I think both are irrelevant in a major way, but I think that honest conservatives would choose the same way were they to only vote on issues, and not on propaganda (of course, impossible).

    This is an interesting issue, because if we remove one or two completely irrelevant factors, such as mythology and propaganda, most people should agree. The most progressive stance is that this is a human rights issue that is necessary to combat undue discrimination. Meanwhile the most conservative position on any issue is 'government hands off", and that should apply here too.

    Should the government care who is married to whom, as long as it's fairly applied to all citizens? Not a chance. If it is truly a religious distinction, then we ought not recognize any marriages for legal purposes and/or certify them. If it is an issue for which the government has an interest, such as commerce, taxation or civil law related to healthcare decisions, inheritance, property rights, etc. then they do have the right to stake interest. Since we all presumably agree that this is a rare situation where "all or nothing" applies, then the government has an obligation to treat the application of legislation as evenly as possible across all citizens and to do so without being tainted by the propaganda.

    The liberal position is "legal, equal" and the conservative (philosophically, not politically) position is "legal, equal". So what in the world is the justification, aside from "God" or "Thor" or "EWW GROSS" for the middle ground that disagrees with both logical positions? Is there any other subset of people that we think, without them committing some crime, should be treated differently than others under the law? If so, we should carefully consider the rationality behind that stance, because that's likely to be the next battle.
    Fairclough, GadgetGator and retsaw like this.
    06-28-2013 02:13 AM
  7. Fairclough's Avatar
    So to be clear, are you saying some people are saying they're gay to be part of a movement?

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    I think his saying for people who are fence sitters they will vote for the movement to be seen as a activist"

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    06-28-2013 02:19 AM
  8. Aquila's Avatar
    Its funny seeing how conservative some people are.
    I'm pretty conservative (the way I think of it, but most people would probably just say weird), but not in the Fox News variety, in the "I'll do what I want, and if it doesn't hurt anyone, stay out of my business" lineage. It ends up being a razer's edge between agreeing with libertarians on some things, progressives on others and on some issues, realizing that they both want the same thing but can't communicate it to each other. Just like I'm not sure anyone would care what I do (assuming I'm acting well), I don't really care what other people do either. I have no interest in people's private lives because I don't have a horse in that race. On policy matters I tend to differ from mainstream conservatives quite a bit, because I'm a fan of optimization. I'm married to a liberal and that also helps to realize how vast the common ground really is when you just slightly change the language being used.

    This is a clear case, for me, of "I don't care if you get married or not" followed by, "everyone who choose to be married should be treated equally in the eyes of the law". Both are pretty conservative positions, the latter of which liberals just happen to agree with.
    Fairclough and Michael Vieux like this.
    06-28-2013 02:32 AM
  9. GadgetGator's Avatar
    They neglected to state that 6.4 million voted against it. The vote was 52% to 48%.
    Exactly. A mere 600,000 votes decided this out of 38 MILLION people in the state. One county even loss by only three people. That is certainly not much of an endorsement for discrimination. And it was even less then the Prop 22 vote. The anti-gay people have been losing this battle for a very long time. Bit by bit, country by country, state by state...drip drip drip...that tide keeps turning a rainbow color. And just like every struggle for equality that has come before it, it will win. Discrimination can hold on for awhile, but it ultimately fails. It's untenable and unsustainable.

    If there is any way we could take this out of personal realm and discuss it from a policy standpoint... that'd probably help.
    By what I said, I mean that instead of someone attacking you or someone else, that they attack the arguments. Not that we dehumanize the subject, but that we discuss arguments based on their own merits, without insulting each other.
    But is IS personal. When you have someone telling you that you should be treated differently (as in second class status), whom you should marry, how you came to be gay (as if they were some sort of expert), and that you should even hide yourself away in your home (in a free country no less) that's pretty darn personal. In fact, it doesn't get any more personal than that.
    msndrstood and Aquila like this.
    06-28-2013 02:33 AM
  10. JHBThree's Avatar
    I think his saying for people who are fence sitters they will vote for the movement to be seen as a activist"

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    That's what I thought, but its fairly ambiguous.
    06-28-2013 02:41 AM
  11. Aquila's Avatar
    But is IS personal. When you have someone telling you that you should be treated differently (as in second class status), whom you should marry, how you came to be gay (as if they were some sort of expert), and that you should even hide yourself away in your home (in a free country no less) that's pretty darn personal. In fact, it doesn't get any more personal than that.
    I think I'm failing to articulate. We don't disagree on WHY we should debate, but merely how.. and I'm not even sure we disagree there, we could just be saying it differently.

    It's really easy to reverse the roles. If someone told me I shouldn't love my wife, I'd tell them to bugger right off. Not their business in the slightest and I don't care what their reasons are.

    There is probably no way for this analogy to come off as not demeaning, because love is not the same as tastes in food, but I find it someone accurate if you give it some grace:

    On the choice vs nature issue:

    I personally find tuna to be absolutely disgusting. I'm sure there are others who find it delicious. There is probably a religion, among the thousands and thousands upon this earth, that forbids it. All of those reasons are no reason at all to deny someone their choice in sandwich. That being said, the reason I find tuna disgusting is the same reason some people like it. Taste buds. You don't choose your taste buds. You don't choose who you love... but you can choose what you eat. What would ever give you the right to choose what someone else eats? Or to tell them what they should find a pleasant flavor?

    Actually, the analogy is valid.. but multiply the intensity of your inability to dictate flavor by the difference in intensity you find in your opinion of your children, or your parents or your spouse compared to your opinions about celery. I agree, it is personal, but not because of an individual being attacked, but because of the absolute absurdity of attempting to apply your tastes on anyone else with legal repercussions for their disagreement.
    06-28-2013 02:44 AM
  12. Fairclough's Avatar
    The crap thing about poles are only people Ruth strong opinions will vote. If everyone was required there might be a surprising result

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    06-28-2013 02:51 AM
  13. JHBThree's Avatar
    By what I said, I mean that instead of someone attacking you or someone else, that they attack the arguments. Not that we dehumanize the subject, but that we discuss arguments based on their own merits, without insulting each other.
    I see.

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    06-28-2013 03:52 AM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    I'm not going to go back and clean up this thread just yet, but let's remember to keep it civil. That includes not calling people ignorant or paranoid, or any of the other things that have been passed along. I have a very strong view in this, that I will not post in the thread because I am going to watch from the sidelines. Regardless of your view points, have respect for each other. Even if the other person is saying something you whole heartily disagree with.
    thanks.

    Jennifer
    Forum Moderator
    Personally I have no issue with you expressing your views, regardless of which side they're on while at the same time calling for civility. I have found your arguments to be thoughtful previously and always presented respectfully, and I trust in your ability to keep moderation decisions and personal expression as separate as it is appropriate to do so. Obviously, we'll respect your decision to abstain, but I for one, and I suspect others would agree, would also respect any decision to add to the discussion as well.
    06-28-2013 04:04 AM
  15. Fairclough's Avatar
    I don't think Ive seen a mod debate a politically hot topic.

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    06-28-2013 04:34 AM
  16. llamabreath's Avatar
    So to be clear, are you saying some people are saying they're gay to be part of a movement?

    Sent from my SGH-M919 using Tapatalk 2
    Yes, crystal clear.
    To be part of a movement and/or with the "in crowd" (well actually "out", in this case).

    Side note -
    Do you think politicians are suddenly favoring gay "marriage" because they really believe in it? Or isn't it more realistic that they're just fishing for votes. Remember Obama suddenly favored gay "marriage" just before the last election?
    That's just one, out of dozens of possible political examples.

    Sent from Hotlanta via New Yawk
    06-28-2013 06:28 AM
  17. Fairclough's Avatar
    Our new current Prime Minister (well old but he just took over from the chick who back stabbed him) recently had a change of heart recently as some of his former colleagues apparently came out of the closet who are deeply religious but desire to be married like everyone else". Not sure if its the support card or a genuine belief.

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    06-28-2013 07:09 AM
  18. llamabreath's Avatar
    I don't understand how someone can be deeply religious and gay at the same time.

    Sent from Hotlanta via New Yawk
    06-28-2013 07:23 AM
  19. msndrstood's Avatar
    Supreme Court issues two illegitimate decisions on same-sex marriage | Fox News

    From the article:

    Over 7 million Californians voted in favor of Proposition 8.
    And totally supported and funded by the Utah Mormons who bussed people in and canvassed neighborhoods. They (Mormons) spent 20 million dollars to defeat the gay marriage proposal. Why does it affect the Mormons?

    What?! ... I'm msndrstood.
    via Note II
    palandri likes this.
    06-28-2013 07:46 AM
  20. Michael Vieux's Avatar
    Against it 30 years ago, against it today....
    I will agree with one brief statement from Justice Anton Scalia today, in effect he stated that doma/prop 8 are issues best decided by the states, not the bench..

    Borrowed from a poster on FB...

    Why would government have a say in marriage at all? Makes no sense. As marriage is a religious institution and was defined in the bible, no government has the right to redefine it. Our forefathers established America and the separation of church and state for the purpose that government cannot interfere with whatever religious practices they chose. The fled England simply because their government was directly ruling through the Church of England and dictating what was taught. The real meaning of separation of church and state was meant so that the state would keep its nose out of the church's business and allow the people to worship as they pleased. Just because our government has perverted the religious act of marriage by making a tax out of it does not mean they have right to govern it.
    Secondly, why would the government hold the interests of the minorities at greater value than the majority? Why are they able to completely overturn the vote of the people? The so called "less than 2%" that claim to be homosexual have now attempted to change what was defined by the church, but for what purpose? Could they not have a partnership in which legally they share all assets, live together, claim each other for tax purposes and share in all activities and benefits that married couples do and yet call it another name? I don't care if they made up a new word, it cannot be called true marriage. What the government has done is equivalent to the Nazi's taking the Buddhist' religious symbol of peace, good fortune and humanity (the swastika) and forever turning it into a political symbol now associated with a gravely negative ideology. The government saying that marriage is now the act of two individuals of any sex would be like the government saying that pigs are now considered clean according to islam (fat chance they mess with islam). They have absolutely no right.
    On the other side, I have no problem with homosexuals in general.

    I do not believe that the act of homosexuality is right, good or moral. If they have the right to believe that it is, I also have the right to believe that it isn't. But forcing Christians et al. to accept this as so is breaking the separation of church and state. You think they're not going to make the churches somehow monetarily pay for this? If they can force them to pay for the abortion pill then this will be no contest. Where are the muslim riots against this? Just wait. In islam it is sin to act homosexually and is punishable by stoning to death, hanging or beheading. The government is quick to accuse Christians of being violent, intolerant bigots, but then what would you call stoning a homosexual man? This country is backwards in more ways than one.
    You may call it "gay marriage" but I will never call it marriage.
    No one is forcing the Christians to accept anything.
    If you disapprove, just don't marry someone of your own sex.
    It has a zero affect on your life.

    Not all Christians are violent, intolerant bigots.
    But many are.
    Reading you hate filled comment shows you are one of them.

    Your refusal to accept that this is a nation where everyone is equal under the law and constitution, is a perfect example of your hate, bigotry, and intolerance.

    Posted via Android Central App
    06-28-2013 07:47 AM
  21. Farish's Avatar
    People that think it's "cool" to be part of a "movement". Not dissimilar to why so many whites voted for Obama.

    Sent from Hotlanta via New Yawk
    How come that one statistics guy was able to predict the outcome of the election dead on?


    Whites who voted for Obama, traditionally voted among party lines.

    Where Obama gain higher roles of "White" votes happen along the lines were those groups felt targeted by the Republican party.
    Single White Female(with or without child). Those rape remarks and even now the attempts to limit abortion on a national level affects them. The Sandra Fluke affair and birth control.
    Youth in Colleges who may have felt targeted with attempt changing of voter laws. Also in general, the trend is younger people are more liberal and become more conservative as they become more establish.

    Now if you look at white businessman, white married couples, that was Rommey.

    Now if you are referring to the primaries against Hilary that is a slightly different story. That was about becoming part of a movement, part of a lack of personality(remember people's views soften she teared up on national news), and the fact she seem part of the same old established Democrats controlling the party.

    Yes, crystal clear.
    To be part of a movement and/or with the "in crowd" (well actually "out", in this case).

    Side note -
    Do you think politicians are suddenly favoring gay "marriage" because they really believe in it? Or isn't it more realistic that they're just fishing for votes. Remember Obama suddenly favored gay "marriage" just before the last election?
    That's just one, out of dozens of possible political examples.

    Sent from Hotlanta via New Yawk
    People in favor to gay marriage traditionally along party lines would have voted for Obama anyways.

    Republicans who are in favor of gay marriage are usually on the Libertarian side of the party. In that sense they still would have voted for Rommey because of their fiscal beliefs have a stronger view on how the country should be driven.

    Where you can see the real fishing for votes is both what the Republicans and Democrats with the immigration reform bill.
    06-28-2013 10:37 AM
  22. Live2ride883's Avatar
    No one is forcing the Christians to accept anything.
    If you disapprove, just don't marry someone of your own sex.
    It has a zero affect on your life.

    Not all Christians are violent, intolerant bigots.
    But many are.
    Reading you hate filled comment shows you are one of them.

    Your refusal to accept that this is a nation where everyone is equal under the law and constitution, is a perfect example of your hate, bigotry, and intolerance.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Homosexuality is a sin plain and simple. I believe that I am supposed to hate sin, but care for the sinner.

    As for not being able to choose who you fall in love with, if that was true then we would all be with the person that first awakened feelings of love within us. We are designed to procreate, there is no way that 2 men or 2 women can create a life naturally the way it was intended.

    I take offense at being called a bigot, and being referred to as hate filled. This is simply not true.
    06-28-2013 11:50 AM
  23. jdbii's Avatar
    By what I said, I mean that instead of someone attacking you or someone else, that they attack the arguments. Not that we dehumanize the subject, but that we discuss arguments based on their own merits, without insulting each other.
    This is what I thought when I saw that post. It feels a bit to me like "bait and switch" if you start a thread and invite comment and then you turn around and drop a hammer on the views one expresses. I see a difference between saying "your statement strikes me as ignorant" and "you ARE ignorant." The former is attacking the point of view expressed by the person and the latter is attacking person. In a thread and forum setting it is often hard to know the distinction and maybe nobody was making a personal attack, but there was for a bit some escalation in words that felt pretty close to personal attacks to me.

    Sexuality, sexual preference, or sexual identity is such an integral part of our person-hood that you can't separate is out in anyway, form, or fashion from being a human being. Trying to do so would be like trying to pretend like somebody isn't a man, or a women, or that they are standing right in front of you, or that they have lungs and heart and blood pumping through their body. So obviously its "personal" when somebody says something like "homosexuality is choice," because an archaic statement like that is a convenient way of stripping humanity and dignity from a person by saying they don't exist, but part of me feels that both sides should be able to safely express their point.

    One thing that really depresses me is when people say "its done and over" (wrong); or "I don't care what people do in the privacy of their home"; (good for you) or "I enjoy seeing THOSE people" (wow your so enlightened) because for me all of those are insidious and extremely discriminatory in nature since they separate out the THEM from US.
    06-28-2013 12:02 PM
  24. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    I don't think Ive seen a mod debate a politically hot topic.

    Posted via the mystical forest creatures that power this Nexus 4.
    You might not have, but other members have seen me do it.
    Live2ride883 and Fairclough like this.
    06-28-2013 12:06 PM
  25. jdbii's Avatar
    Homosexuality is a sin plain and simple. I believe that I am supposed to hate sin, but care for the sinner.
    Can't you qualify it and say in your opinion, or per Christian doctrine, or per the Bible or the teaching of Jesus? If you say outright that "it is a sin" your putting a stamp on a whole group of people as being "sinners." I see that as no different as saying such horrible things as "African Americans should be slaves."
    06-28-2013 12:08 PM
1,813 12345 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Automatic time zone and date/clock are wrong
    By ajua in forum HTC One M7
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 07-04-2018, 01:12 PM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-05-2013, 10:34 AM
  3. Using the TMobile Note 2 in Asia (not Japan & Korea) and Europe for 3G internet
    By Internet_Tough_Guy in forum T-Mobile Galaxy Note 2
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 01:54 PM
  4. Icon question and SMS question
    By JT Peters in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 02:55 PM
  5. USA today review and water damage...
    By quietlybrilliant in forum Samsung Galaxy S4 Active
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-26-2013, 11:13 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD