Poll: Gay marriage

[unpersons]

I don't think he has either left, nor right interests: this does not mean he is center focused either. The only thing Obama is interested in is Obama.
I feel sorry for you that he is your hope. I also feel sorry for him, for having to appeal to every group reeking of desperation to float his barge.

Yeah, I feel sorry for me that no one represents my views. There are no viable socialist candidates, he'll say he supports gay marriage, he once supported marijuana decriminalization, et cetera.

I don't like Obama but FUCK ROMNEY. If Obama is not with us (the trans, the gays, the tokers), Romney is like FUCK...

BY THE WAY, GAY MARRIAGES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED FOR 2,000 YEARS, EVEN BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, EVEN AT THE DAWN OF CHRISTIANITY. THE MORE YOU KNOW. YOUR SIDE HAS BEEN REPRESSING MINE OFF AND ON FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Yeah, I feel sorry for me that no one represents my views. There are no viable socialist candidates, he'll say he supports gay marriage, he once supported marijuana decriminalization, et cetera.

I don't like Obama but FUCK ROMNEY. If Obama is not with us (the trans, the gays, the tokers), Romney is like FUCK...

BY THE WAY, GAY MARRIAGES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED FOR 2,000 YEARS, EVEN BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, EVEN AT THE DAWN OF CHRISTIANITY. THE MORE YOU KNOW. YOUR SIDE HAS BEEN REPRESSING MINE OFF AND ON FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

I hope you don't make the mistake of thinking that I am representative of what Catholicism is about. I think the saints are an infinitely better depiction.

I don't see, however, that because heterosexual unions are blessed with sacramental status by the Church, it is a slight on other people: I just think it is an acknowledgment that married life and the raising of children is a difficult state of life, that needs special support, encouragement and concessions.

 

[Saru Inc]

Yeah, I feel sorry for me that no one represents my views. There are no viable socialist candidates, he'll say he supports gay marriage, he once supported marijuana decriminalization, et cetera.

I don't like Obama but FUCK ROMNEY. If Obama is not with us (the trans, the gays, the tokers), Romney is like FUCK...

BY THE WAY, GAY MARRIAGES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED FOR 2,000 YEARS, EVEN BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, EVEN AT THE DAWN OF CHRISTIANITY. THE MORE YOU KNOW. YOUR SIDE HAS BEEN REPRESSING MINE OFF AND ON FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

oh god whos dick broke off inside of you to put you in such a mood


Chill the fuck out.


also obama is a far left president, any other beliefs is bullshit.

 

[unpersons]

oh god whos dick broke off inside of you to put you in such a mood


Chill the fuck out.


also obama is a far left president, any other beliefs is bullshit.

According to the people behind the political compass, he has moved more towards authoritarian right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008
http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

This is a US election that defies logic and brings the nation closer towards a one-party state, masquerading as a two-party state.

Pretty much what I've been saying, only I didn't get it from them.

Edit: I suppose he was closest to a centrist in 2008, the points they make are valid. I suppose I ignored his excessive shifts towards the right.

 

[Saru Inc]

yeah i don't really give a shit what that site says he's a leftist

 

[unpersons]

yeah i don't really give a shit what that site says he's a leftist

I think the arguments opposed to leftism are pretty well pronounced.

The Democratic incumbent has surrounded himself with conservative advisors and key figures — many from previous administrations, and an unprecedented number from the Trilateral Commission. He also appointed a former Monsanto executive as Senior Advisor to the FDA. He has extended Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, presided over a spiralling rich-poor gap and sacrificed further American jobs with recent free trade deals.Trade union rights have also eroded under his watch. He has expanded Bush defence spending, droned civilians, failed to close Guantanamo, supported the NDAA which effectively legalises martial law, allowed drilling and adopted a soft-touch position towards the banks that is to the right of European Conservative leaders. We list these because many of Obama’s detractors absurdly portray him as either a radical liberal or a socialist, while his apologists, equally absurdly, continue to view him as a well-intentioned progressive, tragically thwarted by overwhelming pressures. 2008's yes-we-can chanters, dazzled by pigment rather than policy detail, forgot to ask can what? Between 1998 and the last election, Obama amassed $37.6million from the financial services industry, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. While 2008 presidential candidate Obama appeared to champion universal health care, his first choice for Secretary of Health was a man who had spent years lobbying on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry against that very concept. Hey! You don't promise a successful pub, and then appoint the Salvation Army to run it. This time around, the honey-tongued President makes populist references to economic justice, while simultaneously appointing as his new Chief of Staff a former Citigroup executive concerned with hedge funds that bet on the housing market to collapse. Obama poses something of a challenge to The Political Compass, because he's a man of so few fixed principles.

Sounds about right to me. I'm pretty far left, about as left as it gets. Significantly to the left of Obama. I'm at -8.50 on their scale and Obama, using the same scale lands at 6.0. That's a pretty big difference. Barack Obama, the so-called leftist, socialist, communist, nazi, (insert conservative fear-mongering mental retardation here), is a whopping 14.5 points in the opposite direction from me, using the same criteria.

But of course I suppose we should all yield to the paranoid-sounding views of the all-knowing and all-mighty [MENTION=3156]Saru Inc[/MENTION] ...

 

[Flavus Aquila]

I think the arguments opposed to leftism are pretty well pronounced.



Sounds about right to me. I'm pretty far left, about as left as it gets. Significantly to the left of Obama. I'm at -8.50 on their scale and Obama, using the same scale lands at 6.0. That's a pretty big difference. Barack Obama, the so-called leftist, socialist, communist, nazi, (insert conservative fear-mongering mental retardation here), is a whopping 14.5 points in the opposite direction from me, using the same criteria.

But of course I suppose we should all yield to the paranoid-sounding views of the all-knowing and all-mighty @Saru Inc ...

Please stop trying to belittle people with the dollar general tabloid opinions trawled from some high-school dropout loser's corner of the internet. If you have an opinion, you should state it and explain it, but not haul your load of bile over everyone.

I don't mind when you do it to me - I kind of find it fun in my own perverse way. I don't think Saru needs defending either. However, I think you need to read all the posts you have submitted to this thread so that you can come to terms with the fact that most of them are crammed with hate.

Whether you like to admit it or not, you are a really nasty hater. You might like to hoodwink yourself that you're not, by calling anyone who doesn't agree with you some sort of bigot. If you go to any out-in-the-open bigot's website, you'll recognise the style: it's the same as yours, albeit about different topics.

I think the topic of gay marriage is worth discussing. You might not agree with that - but if something cannot be discussed, but only couched in nasty attacks on anyone who does not automatically agree - what does that tell you about the topic?

 

[hush]

I think the topic of gay marriage is worth discussing. You might not agree with that - but if something cannot be discussed, but only couched in nasty attacks on anyone who does not automatically agree - what does that tell you about the topic?

What does this tell you about the topic, Sir Eagle?

 

[the]

keep your pity, and your paternalism.










(ps uberrogo )

I wish I knew what this meant.

 

[the]

BY THE WAY, GAY MARRIAGES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED FOR 2,000 YEARS, EVEN BY THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, EVEN AT THE DAWN OF CHRISTIANITY. THE MORE YOU KNOW. YOUR SIDE HAS BEEN REPRESSING MINE OFF AND ON FOR THE ENTIRETY OF THE CHRISTIAN FAITH.

Are you some kind of idiot? You are just blatently contradicting yourself now.

 

[Apone]

Please stop trying to belittle people with the dollar general tabloid opinions trawled from some high-school dropout loser's corner of the internet. If you have an opinion, you should state it and explain it, but not haul your load of bile over everyone.

I'm not so sure that this is helping.

But it's interesting that in your mind 'i don't really give a shit what that site says he's a leftist' seems to be a valid argument while a list of things that Obama has done is not. I don't personally agree that hiring certain people means that you're always going to agree with them or that you're going to use them in the same capacity as a more right-wing leader, but still, at least it's something.

Also-- you've taken great pains to not talk about it here, probably because you know that it could damage the credibility of your argument, but I think it's relevant.

So I have to ask:

Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
Do you think gay people are going to hell?
Do you think that a man/woman relationship is more socially productive than a same-sex relationship?
Do the people in your church say things like 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve'?

Homophobia is a huge part of this issue… the way I see it, it's pretty much the only real obstacle.

 

[the]

But it's interesting that in your mind 'i don't really give a shit what that site says he's a leftist' seems to be a valid argument while a list of things that Obama has done is not.

I thought so too, but I thought [MENTION=3156]Saru Inc[/MENTION] said that, not [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION].

 

[Apone]

I thought so too, but I thought [MENTION=3156]Saru Inc[/MENTION] said that, not [MENTION=862]Flavus Aquila[/MENTION].

I meant that if the point was to call someone out for being dumb then why would he go after the slightly stronger argument and completely ignore the totally empty one? A little charity goes a long way.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

Also-- you've taken great pains to not talk about it here, probably because you know that it could damage the credibility of your argument, but I think it's relevant.

So I have to ask:

Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
Do you think gay people are going to hell?
Do you think that a man/woman relationship is more socially productive than a same-sex relationship?
Do the people in your church say things like 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve'?

Homophobia is a huge part of this issue… the way I see it, it's pretty much the only real obstacle.

I don't talk about it, because it doesn't seem particularly relevant.

However, to answer your questions:

Do you think homosexuality is a sin?
I think homosexuality is a disposition. Sin, however describes one kind of moral action. Dispositions and actions are different things.

Do you think gay people are going to hell?
Yes - I think hell is a very inclusive place which receives straight, gay, Christian, Jew, Muslim - basically anyone.

Do you think that a man/woman relationship is more socially productive than a same-sex relationship?
Since society is basically composed of human beings - and every human being today came about because of some male/female relationship (even if it be mediated by medical technology), then the male/female relationship has a perfect monopoly on the material production of society. (Just as in all the higher animals).

Do the people in your church say things like 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve'?
I suppose someone has probably said it some time in my Church. I have not heard it, but if you were to write any coherent phrase I would be willing to bet someone has said it at some point.

 

[Flavus Aquila]

What does this tell you about the topic, Sir Eagle?

That people are passionate about it, without having thought about it. This implies that people don't actually want it spontaneously, but have been told they should want it, much like the dynamic involved in advertising.

 

[Apone]

I don't talk about it, because it doesn't seem particularly relevant.

So you don't think that your religion/the attitudes of people in your church have anything to do with how you feel about an issue?

I think homosexuality is a disposition. Sin, however describes one kind of moral action. Dispositions and actions are different things.

What does this mean?
Are you saying that you can be as gay as you want-- just make sure you don't have sex and you won't go to hell?

Yes - I think hell is a very inclusive place which receives straight, gay, Christian, Jew, Muslim - basically anyone.

Did you seriously not know what I was asking there or did you avoid answering on purpose? I meant: do you think that gay people are going to hell because they have sex with other gay people? Do you think that someone who is gay can have a perfectly healthy giving loving productive existence but unfortunately they're a sodomite so they're going to hell?

Since society is basically composed of human beings - and every human being today came about because of some male/female relationship (even if it be mediated by medical technology), then the male/female relationship has a perfect monopoly on the material production of society. (Just as in all the higher animals).

So it's the giving birth that matters and all the raising and schooling and educating and guiding and feeding and providing and instilling of values is just a big waste of time/not productive?

I suppose someone has probably said it some time in my Church. I have not heard it, but if you were to write any coherent phrase I would be willing to bet someone has said it at some point.

Again, either you're genuinely oblivious to what I'm getting at or you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid addressing the issue. I mean do you think that there is a prevailing homophobic attitude in your church and do you think that this might, just might, be one of the reasons that you're taking the stance you're taking?

You seem to be saying that nobody else is giving this issue as much thought as you are and that the only reason that anyone could ever disagree with you is because we're sheep who are allowing ourselves to be led by popular opinion-- have you ever considered that maybe popular opinion is popular opinion because it's genuinely a good idea?

Furthermore, I highly highly doubt that you have just spontaneously arrived at all of your opinions through extensive independent meditations on the subject, or that you haven't been influenced by others when coming to whatever conclusions you've come to.

Again-- Canada has had gay marriage for 7 years now and nobody has complained that it's not fair or that it isn't suited to their needs. To me, saying that there must be separate considerations, whatever those may be, sounds to me like you just don't understand gay people, or you have a prejudice against homosexuals. I'm not even judging you for it but I do think that you should be honest with yourself about it, if not on this site while everyone's watching what you type.

 

[hush]

That people are passionate about it, without having thought about it. This implies that people don't actually want it spontaneously, but have been told they should want it, much like the dynamic involved in advertising.

Interesting, though I believe it would have been more accurate and clear to say:

"This implies that some people don't actually want it spontaneously, but that some have been told they should want it, much like the dynamic used in advertising."

I can see benefits to allowing gay marriage, such as potentially making homosexuality seem like more of an embraced aspect of one's identity, rather than a rejected one, to the eyes of the masses... though, I'm not sure this will ever happen. Lots of stubborn people in this world, who are free to believe whatever they want, even if their beliefs cause harm and suffering to others.

This notion, however, conflicts with my belief that marriage is not necessary to one's happiness, nor for living a fulfilling life. Some people do desire it, though, for whatever reason, and there is a lack of justice in denying it to same-sex couples (especially since the benefits it offers go beyond child-rearing, and same-sex couples often have children, anyway). It might not be something that would bring me happiness, but it could bring joy to others - some of whom, admittedly, might feel this way because they have been told they should want it (but, people are not empty vessels - it is a tiny bit insulting to imply that people can't think and decide for themselves, though there is truth in how easily some can be swayed).

I don't know, if it isn't clear, this topic can make me conflicted. More than anything else, I feel it shouldn't be an issue and is a good way to get people riled up (both sides) and distracted from the more severe atrocities going on in the world, but whatever.

Your simple statement gave me a bit to think about...

 

[Flavus Aquila]

So you don't think that your religion/the attitudes of people in your church have anything to do with how you feel about an issue?

Everyone we deal with has an effect on us. The people on this forum have an effect on how I feel about things. The people on this thread effect how I feel about things.
A question back at you: how do you think the way you direct posts at me personally make me feel about this issue?

What does this mean?
Are you saying that you can be as gay as you want-- just make sure you don't have sex and you won't go to hell?

I meant, to repeat, that dispositions are different from actions, which arise from choices. We are only partly responsible for our dispositions, but we are mostly responsible for our actions resulting from choices.
I don't want to get into discussions about hell.

Did you seriously not know what I was asking there or did you avoid answering on purpose? I meant: do you think that gay people are going to hell because they have sex with other gay people? Do you think that someone who is gay can have a perfectly healthy giving loving productive existence but unfortunately they're a sodomite so they're going to hell?

Again, I don't like getting into conversations about hell, or who does, or doesn't deserve to go there. I can only say for sure that I, for my part, definitely deserve to go to hell.

So it's the giving birth that matters and all the raising and schooling and educating and guiding and feeding and providing and instilling of values is just a big waste of time/not productive?

Your question was whether I thought heterosexual relationships were more productive in society. Every member of society is here because of a heterosexual interaction (just the way we reproduce). As for raising, schooling, educating, guiding, feeding, etc. Those things are the responsibility of parents. When parents are irresponsible - or are lost through tragedy - the responsibility is taken up vicariously, or by substitution by other people: foster parents, adoptive parents, guardians, etc.
I personally feel that when parents abandon/neglect their children, or when children lose their parents it is just about the worst thing. Foster care, while something to be admired, is definitely a response to a tragic situation - to provide vicariously, or by substitution, what properly is supposed to come from parents.

Again, either you're genuinely oblivious to what I'm getting at or you're being deliberately obtuse to avoid addressing the issue. I mean do you think that there is a prevailing homophobic attitude in your church and do you think that this might, just might, be one of the reasons that you're taking the stance you're taking?

I don't think there is a prevailing homophobic attitude in my church - the prevailing attitude would seem to be defined by the constitutive foundation of the church, which is faith in God, hope in God and charity towards God, self and neighbour. Nevertheless, I am sure that among the members of my church there would be represented just about every phobia in at least some members. However, a church is not defined by what it has in common with a worldwide population, but that which makes it different.
In case this still does not satisfy your quest for something to satisfy your bigotry - I cannot recall ever having heard any sermon ever about homosexuality, homosexuals, etc.

You seem to be saying that nobody else is giving this issue as much thought as you are and that the only reason that anyone could ever disagree with you is because we're sheep who are allowing ourselves to be led by popular opinion-- have you ever considered that maybe popular opinion is popular opinion because it's genuinely a good idea?

I don't expect people to agree with me - but if they disagree with me I would hope that they could give reasons why, instead of trying to attack me personally. I impute the fact that I am more attacked than addressed, because I disagree with gay marriage, to the absence of any intellectual conviction for gay marriage.

Furthermore, I highly highly doubt that you have just spontaneously arrived at all of your opinions through extensive independent meditations on the subject, or that you haven't been influenced by others when coming to whatever conclusions you've come to.

I agree. We are all born as blank slates.
I likewise think that homosexuals are the product of the social/family environment they grew up in.

Again-- Canada has had gay marriage for 7 years now and nobody has complained that it's not fair or that it isn't suited to their needs. To me, saying that there must be separate considerations, whatever those may be, sounds to me like you just don't understand gay people, or you have a prejudice against homosexuals. I'm not even judging you for it but I do think that you should be honest with yourself about it, if not on this site while everyone's watching what you type.

My issue is not with homosexuals, but with the notion that the unions that homosexuals enjoy should be considered the same as the union that heterosexuals enjoy. The reason for this is because of the reproductive potential in a heterosexual union, which brings along with issues of the mutual commitment of the couple, issues of parental responsibility and those things which encourage the individuals involved to be responsible, healthy parents involved in the raising of the next generation of society.

 

[Saru Inc]

Yea no offense but I stopped taking this argument seriously like... 4 pages ago? You can usually tell when I stop caring about an argument because I make posts like that.


Idk but this whole thing seems like a circus show. So, anyways I'll take my ignorant conservative Christian gay little self away from this and let the almight lesbian queen handle. Whatever.

I still think its all about states rights. That part of my post I was serious about

 

[Apone]

A question back at you: how do you think the way you direct posts at me personally make me feel about this issue?

I think it depends on whether or not you're actually considering what I'm saying.

I meant, to repeat, that dispositions are different from actions, which arise from choices. We are only partly responsible for our dispositions, but we are mostly responsible for our actions resulting from choices.
I don't want to get into discussions about hell.

I'll take that as a 'no comment, but yes'.

In case this still does not satisfy your quest for something to satisfy your bigotry - I cannot recall ever having heard any sermon ever about homosexuality, homosexuals, etc.

So the only way that I could possibly ever think that certain denominations condemn homosexuality is because I'm a bigot? Are you saying that it doesn't happen? That the Pope himself didn't say that gay marriage is 'a threat to creation'??

I don't expect people to agree with me - but if they disagree with me I would hope that they could give reasons why, instead of trying to attack me personally. I impute the fact that I am more attacked than addressed, because I disagree with gay marriage, to the absence of any intellectual conviction for gay marriage.

So you don't think that saying that nobody on this thread is really thinking about the issue is an attack? You don't think that implying that there's a vast uncrossable chasm between the gay way and the straight path (which, btw, is completely by choice) is in any way insulting?

And I really don't know what you expect to hear. I've already said that Canada has had same sex marriage for years and there have been zero bumps along the way. It has already been said that it's actually a matter of religious freedom to be able to permit those churches who perform same-sex marriages to have them legally recognized. I have already said that while perhaps gay couples cannot conceive they can still actively participate in most of their child's life (assuming they die before their child does), which is somehow not good enough for you. We've also discussed how discrimination/separations will almost always produce unfair conditions, ie: 'separate but equal' with regards to African Americans. Do you think that black people should be allowed to get married? What about short people? Extremely tall people? Maybe they'd all be better served by some other kind of union too?

My issue is not with homosexuals, but with the notion that the unions that homosexuals enjoy should be considered the same as the union that heterosexuals enjoy. The reason for this is because of the reproductive potential in a heterosexual union, which brings along with issues of the mutual commitment of the couple, issues of parental responsibility and those things which encourage the individuals involved to be responsible, healthy parents involved in the raising of the next generation of society.

I am so so incredibly confused by this… I'm actually beginning to assume that there's some sort of hidden meaning in what you're saying. You don't think that gay people are committed? You don't think that they can be responsible, healthy parents? You don't think that they can raise the next generation of society? It's like you're living in the 19th century or something. ALL of those issues pertain to ALL couples, except the whole reproduction part… with gay couples it's almost always a conscious decision as opposed to an accident. What about my uncle? He's sterile through no fault of his own… should he still be allowed to get married??