That video is so damn sad... Simply put, you cannot pick and choose which rights you give to which people. And if the word 'marriage' is such a big deal, why couldn't you just re-write the benefits of civil unions to be identical to that of marriages? Thus making marriages entirely religious matters (Which they are anyway) and as a result, not depriving anybody of rights?
The fact that THIS is the issue that's going to hand Barrack Obama his second term is insane; I'm happy we won't see a Republican president, but this being how it happens baffles me.
__________________ ”All you have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to you.”
This really needs to be embedded, this video is so incredible its one of the funniest things Ive seen in some time. They need to autotune this song like eat tha poo poo...
Oh man. So many gems in this video.
"Why do gays like to see people parishing? P-E-N-I-S goes into the anus to rupture intestines. The more a man does this, the more likely he'll be a fatality or a homicider. Getting pleasure while the other man passes away reverberates another homicide later".
"Only gays go to gender studies. Gays are the bioethic genociders in hospitals".
"Whitney Houston was found without clothes in a bathtub. Every corpse found without clothes has a partner that did away with them. Lesbians and gays rarely live past 40 because it is common for their partner to do away with them or they self-inflict. We want everyone to live as long as possible - for people to be 80 years old instead of 40 years old. DON'T GO GAY! It's not healthy".
"Anus licking causes sepsus. If not given antibiotics within half an hour they perish".
"Have no gays in education. A high percent of gay men in schoolgrounds molest boys - partly because they don't have AIDS yet. Be on the side of the innocent boy who gets F's and D's a year after being molested".
"To avoid going gay like Hillary Clinton did, schools need single rooms and single-tender dorms. Lesbianism is not normal. A college woman is seduced with illegal rohibinol (?) to go gay otherwise they think it's abhorrent".
"Roman senators went to Roman baths to be promiscuous gays, bi's, and orgyers, then went to the Colosseum to watch Christians get mauled and perish. Do gays become this sadistic? YES!".
"80% of those that did treason by the year 2000 were gays".
"The California Board of Education said last year 'children in San Francisco had the worst scholastics - failing in all subjects at all grade levels'. They cry all day and rape each other hetero (?) without being told not to".
"Homosexuals always become insane".
Alright, sorry if I went overboard on the quotes, but this video is probably a top 5 funniest video I've ever seen haha.
Last edited by Pierre "Monster" McGuire; 05-14-2012 at 02:57 AM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Pierre "Monster" McGuire For This Useful Post:
The funny thing about this thread is that I have several extremely conservative friends who I discuss politics with regularly. They are in favor of limited government just as much as Mikey, yet they make intelligent discourse on this topic. Their point of view is 1. they don't really give a damn too much about whether gays have the right to marriage. 2. however, this argument should really be about whether gov't should have anything to do with marriage to begin with. They argue that marriage should be done at church/mosque/whatever and legal paperwork that defines their partner's rights be filled out at the same time.
I don't fully agree with this position, but it makes a hell of a lot more sense than denying people the right to marriage based on sexual preference. It's also what the real view on people who have a limited gov't philosophy should be. Which is why it's hilarious that Mikey talks about other people having an emotional stance, when his is clearly dictated by religion and emotion.
They argue that marriage should be done at church/mosque/whatever and legal paperwork that defines their partner's rights be filled out at the same time.
If we implemented that idea, how would someone like me get married? My wife and I were not married in a church/mosque/whatever, and our wedding ceremony was officiated by a judge, not a religious leader.
If we implemented that idea, how would someone like me get married? My wife and I were not married in a church/mosque/whatever, and our wedding ceremony was officiated by a judge, not a religious leader.
The whatever implies non-religious ceremonies. You would just fill out the legal documents dictating your partner's rights.
The whatever implies non-religious ceremonies. You would just fill out the legal documents dictating your partner's rights.
So how is that any different from what we already have today? We signed our marriage documents at the time of the wedding ceremony. The best man and maid of honour also had to sign as witnesses. At every wedding I've been to in my life (some religious, some secular), it's always been done that way.
So how is that any different from what we already have today? We signed our marriage documents at the time of the wedding ceremony. The best man and maid of honour also had to sign as witnesses. At every wedding I've been to in my life (some religious, some secular), it's always been done that way.
Government isn't dictating who can and can't get married. The legal documents outline the benefits that the partner gets, not some standard layout that the gov't sets out ie visitation rights, etc... Gov't doesn't recognize marriage at all just what is in the legal contract. No marriage tax benefits, etc...
Also, just because someone isn't old enough to drive a car, doesnt mean they don't have valid points when it comes to social issues like this. Now, if he had been taking his daughters advice about economic policy it would be a different story.
__________________
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Teh_Bandwagoner For This Useful Post:
It's nice to see only one or two people against it in these threads.... I remember when this topic first came up on Calgary puck and it seemed like I was certainty in the minority thinking gay marriage should be allowed.
Do you really think that's the reason? That's naive.
Do you really think that's the reason? That's naive.
You don't think that people's opinions over the last ten years have changed on gay marriage? Well I guess you are entitled but polling data tells an entirely different story.
You don't think that people's opinions over the last ten years have changed on gay marriage? Well I guess you are entitled but polling data tells an entirely different story.
I didn't say that. I'm telling you there are lots more people here who disagree with gay marriage but don't want to be branded bigots and have to defend their views.
I didn't say that. I'm telling you there are lots more people here who disagree with gay marriage but don't want to be branded bigots and have to defend their views.
That sort of says it all though, no? Perhaps, if people are branding you a bigot, and you find yourself unable or unwilling to defend your views, that's a signal that it may be time to re-evaluate those views?
__________________
"Life of Russian hockey veterans is very hard," said Soviet hockey star Sergei Makarov. "Most of them don't have enough to eat these days. These old players are Russian legends."
The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to Makarov For This Useful Post:
Do you really think that's the reason? That's naive.
Whose naive?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoneyGuy
I didn't say that. I'm telling you there are lots more people here who disagree with gay marriage but don't want to be branded bigots and have to defend their views.
Seriously?
How many shadowy figures are out there?
My comment was about the amount of people in this thread against gay marriage, compared to when this topic was first discussed here 10+ years ago. I don't know what is so "Naive" about my comments. You mentioning people in vague terms doesn't go against what I said.
The fact all these posters you claim don't speak up, and let a guy like mikey take the fall for them speaks volumes about this issue.
Last edited by MrMastodonFarm; 05-14-2012 at 09:20 PM.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to MrMastodonFarm For This Useful Post:
1. I have consistently been in favour of gay marriage.
2. I have consistently been opposed to gay marriage.
3. I was formerly against gay marriage but am now in favour of it.
4. I was formerly in favour of gay marriage but am now against it.
I'm not sure if anyone would pick option 4, but it would be interesting to see if anyone felt that way and why.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
1. I have consistently been in favour of gay marriage.
2. I have consistently been opposed to gay marriage.
3. I was formerly against gay marriage but am now in favour of it.
4. I was formerly in favour of gay marriage but am now against it.
I'm not sure if anyone would pick option 4, but it would be interesting to see if anyone felt that way and why.
Ok poll added, keep in mind I think the intent is to vote in terms of gay marriage being the same as marriage currently... If you think something else (i.e. get government out of marriage totally) then vote with the spirit of your position.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
