Albertans accused of red-neck & anti-gay

[crazymf]

Yeah I know. To outline that there's people like you and people like me.

[Redneck Yokel]

If a relatively small percentage of people murdered someone every year that would "have virtually no impact on the long term reproductive survivablity of our species.

Does that mean it should be allowed?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you seriously comparing gay marriage to murder?

This has to be one of the most poorly thought out analogies I've ever heard...

-k

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

How so? Whether you stop something from living by never bringing it into existence or destroying its existence... it is still destroyed. Perhaps you're just not willing to think it through.

The relatively small percentage of marriages that will be homosexual will have virtually no impact on the long term reproductive survivablity of our species.

He does concede that it will have an impact, but simply states that it will be minute.

I am not comparing the state of being in a ssm to murdering someone, I am comparing the effects of the two things. While the actions may not be the same, the consequences (at least the aspect which I have outlined) are.

[crazymf]

I have a cousin who's queer. Been that way since day one I'm told. He lives his life. I think he's in Montreal now. I've never discussed it with him and he keeps it to himself. Live and let live. If he got married I couldn't care a less. I have to admit it might be a bit weird if he ever brought his husband and stayed at my house, but I sincerly doubt that he'd EVER flaunt the fact that he was equally married as my wife and myself.

So all you gays, go ahead and get married if you want because now you can. Then get back in the closet and shut the hell up about it. What is starting to piss me off is the militant attitude of enforced tolerence around here.

WE HEARD, OK? Get over it.

[THELIBERAL]

RE::I was trying to be a fairly liberal redneck by saying the civil union thing because I really couldn't care a less what people want to do as long as it doesn't interfere with my lifestyle.

How does SSM interfere with your lifestyle?

[crazymf]

You can walk down the street waving your shorts in the air too. I don't care about that either as long as it doesn't interfere with my lifestyle.

I don't look for ways that it does, just as long as it doesn't.

"Growing up, you knew that you would be unable to marry or, if you did, you would be unhappy," said Woody George, 31, who has been with his partner, Scott Middleton, for five years.

Hehe, wonder who's the husband there....

[Renegade]

The polarization around SSM is both facinating and bewildering. The reason for the emotionalism and polarization is because the traditional definition of marriage involved both a civil component and a moral or religious one.

I can see the state's desire to define the terms and obligations of the civil contract between two individuals. For the most part on the posters in this thread concede that same-sex individuals should be free to engage in a civil-contract which carries the same responsibilities and obligations as opposite-sex couples.

The difficulty comes with the word "marriage" as it carries with it, the connotation that this a relationship sanctioned by the state.

IMO, while the state can define the terms of a civil contract between individuals, I can't see why the state should have to denote any positive or negative judgment of such a contract. Why should the state define what marriage is? Is that not a determination that an individual can make. Alternatively, an individual can ascribe to the beliefs of a church, and can accept the church's definition of marriage. Any individual is free to recognize any definition of marriage they so choose. They however, are not free to prevent others from entering by choice into a civil contract.

The state should stay away from defining terms such as marriage, family, church, etc. Trying to do so results in an exclusionary society which can only result in conflict.

[Black Dog]

You guys are queer lovers, some of us don't care for that kind of stuff.

Well, I'm sure that would come as a surprise to my girlfriend, unless you mean that I support gay individuals' in their struggle for equality. In which case I'll proudly say it:

I <3 Queers.

How so? Whether you stop something from living by never bringing it into existence or destroying its existence... it is still destroyed. Perhaps you're just not willing to think it through.

Have any "traditional" marriages ceased to exist on account of the advent of gay marriage?

[Melanie_]

How so? Whether you stop something from living by never bringing it into existence or destroying its existence... it is still destroyed.  Perhaps you're just not willing to think it through.

Are you against all forms of birth control for straight people, then?

[kimmy]

If a relatively small percentage of people murdered someone every year that would "have virtually no impact on the long term reproductive survivablity of our species.

Does that mean it should be allowed?

Are you seriously comparing gay marriage to murder?

This has to be one of the most poorly thought out analogies I've ever heard...

How so? Whether you stop something from living by never bringing it into existence or destroying its existence... it is still destroyed. Perhaps you're just not willing to think it through.

So... gay people are destroying children by not bringing them into existence? Is that what you're trying to say?

I'm ... speachless.

I'm 22... which means I could have had 5 or 6 babies by now... but I haven't had any. Am I destroying babies? I ... I don't know how I can sleep at night.

-k

[Renegade]

Whether you stop something from living by never bringing it into existence or destroying its existence... it is still destroyed. Perhaps you're just not willing to think it through.

Melanie, kimmy I'm surprised you even bother responding to the kind of nonsense posted above.

[takeanumber]

So all you gays, go ahead and get married if you want because now you can. Then get back in the closet and shut the hell up about it. What is starting to piss me off is the militant attitude of enforced tolerence around here.

More bigotry.

Expect to see more Public Displays of Affection by Alberta's homosexuals.

A lot more.

Now, as for the misperception that I impled some Albertans were Nazi's. No, of course not.

I'm saying: in Sixty years time, people will look back on the majority of Albertans and shake their heads in shame. Being unfashionable, similar to old Germans today, they'll fein "we knew nothing" and "it was all Klein".

When, we now know, the average German back then participated in the persecution of homosexuals and Jews.

In fact, Crazymf's arguements against homosexuals resemble those against homosexuals here.

If you're against SSM, you're anti-homosexual.

All the arguements against SSM are grounded on hatred. It's been shown time and time again.

The procreation thesis.

Shattered.

The protection thesis.

Shattered.

The children thesis.

Shattered.

The Religious Protection thesis.

Shattered.

The Additional Religion Rights thesis.

Shattered.

There are no theses left except for hatred.

[Argus]

If you're against SSM, you're anti-homosexual. 

All the arguements against SSM are grounded on hatred.  It's been shown time and time again.

The procreation thesis.

Shattered.

The protection thesis.

Shattered.

The children thesis.

Shattered.

The Religious Protection thesis.

Shattered.

The Additional Religion Rights thesis.

Shattered.

I'm not sure if I should be the one to tell you this - but since your mom never did I'll have to give it a try.

Just because you don't like an argument, or you are unconvinced by it, or you don't care about it - that does not actually mean your argument is the better one.

[I Miss Trudeau]

He does concede that it will have an impact, but simply states that it will be minute.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fair enough. I assume that you would support the laws against rape being repealed, too? On our greatly over populated planet, we simply can't afford to produce any fewer babies!

[I Miss Trudeau]

Just because you don't like an argument, or you are unconvinced by it, or you don't care about it - that does not actually mean your argument is the better one.

Yes, Argus. We know that you are unmoved by things such as facts or the validity of arguments. No need to repeat it for us.

[Guest eureka]

I think this topic should have run its course. It is quite sickening to see the "cries" of hatred from those who support SSM: from those who claim that their's is the way of tolerance.

I begin to wonder if some are not protesting just a little too much. Is it perhaps guilt for suppressed hostility to homosexuality that fuels their indignance?

[I Miss Trudeau]

I think this topic should have run its course. It is quite sickening to see the "cries" of hatred from those who support SSM: from those who claim that their's is the way of tolerance.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh thats right. Tolerance of intolerance is surely the ideal that I, and most "progressives," strive for.

I begin to wonder if some are not protesting just a little too much. Is it perhaps guilt for suppressed hostility to homosexuality that fuels their indignance?

I hate them! I hate those queers! And thats why I wish to curse them with marriage!

[Redneck Yokel]

In a sense... it is so. (Look here, this statement is so completely open that you won't even have to think about how spin it about. Go ahead and use it as you will. There's no need to ask anyone to clear up a point around here. Bloody hell that would be terrible to have to DISCUSS something rather than just throw out half-brained one liners and gang bash a single person. Good lord, that would be horrid indeed.)

Black dog: Please check into a 'discussion' (lmfao, it is quite comical to consider any of this a discussion) before you try to join in. You apparently do not have any idea of what I was speaking of in the first place. Before you reply, simply check into what has been said and what I have said in return.

Kimmy and the other one or two: Twist away at my statements all you wish. You could ask me to clarify, perhaps, rather than placing the words in my mouth (so to speak).

I thought I had properly expressed what I had wished to say but I apparently have not. It would take entirely too much time and effort at this point in time to clear up the bullsh*t. Please feel free to show further immaturity by using this opportunity to claim that I simply refuse to accept that I am incorrect.

[Redneck Yokel]

Whether you stop something from living by never bringing it into existence or destroying its existence... it is still destroyed. Perhaps you're just not willing to think it through.

Melanie, kimmy I'm surprised you even bother responding to the kind of nonsense posted above.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Excellent addition to this topic. I bet if you thought REAL HARD you might be able to think up a personal insult against me as well. I could sit back and take absolutely everything said here out of context and throw it back at you in a jumbled up ball of crap which can never truly be considered intelligent despite the fact that it is (for some reason beyond my own comprehension) considered valid by the wolfpack, but I will try not to. (that's not just to this renegade individual)

[kimmy]

Kimmy and the other one or two: Twist away at my statements all you wish. You could ask me to clarify, perhaps, rather than placing the words in my mouth (so to speak).

I thought I had properly expressed what I had wished to say but I apparently have not. It would take entirely too much time and effort at this point in time to clear up the bullsh*t. Please feel free to show further immaturity by using this opportunity to claim that I simply refuse to accept that I am incorrect.

Just to recap, you said:

If a relatively small percentage of people murdered someone every year that would "have virtually no impact on the long term reproductive survivablity of our species.

Does that mean it should be allowed?

I asked if you were seriously comparing gay marriage to murder, and suggested it was poorly thought out. You replied:

How so? Whether you stop something from living by never bringing it into existence or destroying its existence... it is still destroyed. Perhaps you're just not willing to think it through.

Anybody would read that to say that if you're not reproducing, you've destroyed babies by not bringing them into existence.

If that is what you meant to say, then you should not be surprised that people have ridiculed your opinion.

If that is not what you meant to say, then you have done an incredibly poor job of expressing yourself.

-k

[Argus]

Just because you don't like an argument, or you are unconvinced by it, or you don't care about it - that does not actually mean your argument is the better one.

Yes, Argus. We know that you are unmoved by things such as facts or the validity of arguments. No need to repeat it for us.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, IMT, if you ever go so far as to present any facts, or make a valid argument, perhaps I can be made to reconsider. But so long as your arguments consist mainly of self-righteous and emotional pap then I'll remain unconvinced.

[Black Dog]

Black dog: Please check into a 'discussion' (lmfao, it is quite comical to consider any of this a discussion) before you try to join in. You apparently do not have any idea of what I was speaking of in the first place. .

Apparently neither does anyone else. I'd be surprised if you had a clue yourself.

You said:

If a relatively small percentage of people murdered someone every year that would "have virtually no impact on the long term reproductive survivablity of our species.

Does that mean it should be allowed?

Which seems to indicate that the minute impact gay marriage will have on the population is sufficient grounds to prohibit it.

Your subsequent clarification:

How so? Whether you stop something from living by never bringing it into existence or destroying its existence... it is still destroyed. Perhaps you're just not willing to think it through.

...

I am not comparing the state of being in a ssm to murdering someone, I am comparing the effects of the two things. While the actions may not be the same, the consequences (at least the aspect which I have outlined) are.

Seems to indicate that you're talking about procreation and how gay marriage, since standard issue procreation is not an option, is the equivilant of...what? Abortion? Infanticide?

By the same logic, then, masturbation has the same consequenses as murder.

I thought I had properly expressed what I had wished to say but I apparently have not. It would take entirely too much time and effort at this point in time to clear up the bullsh*t. Please feel free to show further immaturity by using this opportunity to claim that I simply refuse to accept that I am incorrect.

Or it could just be that your premise is both poorly expressed and fundamentally incorrect.

[Guest eureka]

"If one sperm is wasted God gets most irate."

[Redneck Yokel]

You're absolutely correct. I have expressed what I intended to say very poorly. I apologize for being so completely unclear.

I suppose I should go back to drinking and partying like a normal 18 year old. I'll stay out of such political matters, for the most part.

[Hawk]

Seems to indicate that you're talking about procreation and how gay marriage, since standard issue procreation is not an option, is the equivilant of...what? Abortion? Infanticide?

By the same logic, then, masturbation has the same consequenses as murder. 

Not unless you marry your dick

[takeanumber]

Argus:

You've always failed to back up any of your theses: from procreation to the heterosexual marriage will be devalued.

Others haved failed to argue the religious immunity/impunity thesis.

You sir have always failed to address the segregation 'seperate is not equal' thesis, as argued back to Brown v. Board of Education.

You've failed time and time again.

And so, because there is no rational arguement supporting any of your theses', I have to conclude that it's based on hatred, just like Crazymf has demonstrated.

If you're against SSM, you're masking you're either masking your hatred (not wanting society to accept homosexuals) or you're in denial, or you're gay and deep in the closet.

If you're against SSM, you're pro-segregation.

Truly, the logic is that simple.